From VM Thu Oct 1 11:49:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1727" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "19:36:37" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "50" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1727 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12256 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:40:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA12125 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA15508; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:36:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810011836.TAA15508@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:36:37 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > | | H | H H > > V V | V | | > > H V H V V > > | H | H > > H V H | V | H > > | | V H V | > > V V | V > > V > > - - - - - - - - - - - - negative charges > > -----------[ship]----------- > > + + + + + + + + + + + + positive charges > > H H H > > | | H | H H > > V V | V | | > > H V H V V > > | H | H > > H V H | V | H > > | | V H V | > > V v | v > > V > > > > The problem is how to generate two monopolar fields? If you simply use two > grids, your net thrust will be zero. > Statically probably yes. Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way. That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing magnetic fields in electric motors. > > Umm... Negative? By stripping away an electron, wouldn't it be > > positive? If I'm wrong, then reverse the charges on the above drawing. > > I'm not sure, but I think you would end up with both positive and negative > ions in roughly equal amounts. > Provided that hydrogen atoms are separated by some 1 cm or so in interstellar space, we would rather get a thin plasma - a rarified mixture od positive protons and negative electrons. Which raises another doubt on the possibility for the above design to work, since protons and electrons would give opposite thrust to the ship. Unless the mass difference between them would help... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Thu Oct 1 11:55:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1137" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "19:43:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar travel-using vacuum..ur point?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1137 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18751 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:47:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA18474 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA15514 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:43:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810011843.TAA15514@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar travel-using vacuum..ur point? Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:43:21 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Lee, > > What causes the bubble? > > Nels > > > > Something about the big bang and chaos and the way the universe formed. I > don't remember the whole theory, but I know that they have been able to > model it using chaos theory. > > Anyway, the Universe looks like a big tub full of soap bubbles with most of > the stars and matter concentrated in the "film" of the bubbles. We aren't in > the "film", we're in the middle of one. I've got a picture around here > somewhere. > No - that "bubble" structure of the Universe you are speaking about (attributed to the not well understood processes during the Big Bang) is of much greater dimensions than interstellar spaces in our Galaxy - it applies to the distribution of galaxies in the intergalactic space. The bubbles within the Galaxy are much smaller and were produced quite recently, during the development of the structure of the Galaxy. As it was pointed out in another post, they are attributed mostly to supernova explosions and other events of this type, very, very tiny and local as compared to Big Bang. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Thu Oct 1 13:47:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1363" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "15:33:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1363 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23693 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:39:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA23647 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p228.gnt.com [204.49.89.228]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA19899; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:39:23 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810011836.TAA15508@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:33:50 -0500 Zenon, > Statically probably yes. > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way. > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing > magnetic fields in electric motors. I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work. I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or David can probably give you a better explanation than I can. I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine. In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty! Lee From VM Thu Oct 1 17:46:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1600" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "17:40:23" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1600 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04783 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04766 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante29.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante29.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.103]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id RAA23048 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante29.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id RAA80622 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) I would be very much interested in hearing about magnentic monopoles and their potential use in starflight. Best Regards Nels Lindberg On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Zenon, > > > > Statically probably yes. > > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way. > > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing > > magnetic fields in electric motors. > > I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic > fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off > in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved > globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to > remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work. > > I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent > example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or > David can probably give you a better explanation than I can. > > I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a > first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine. > In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up > to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to > put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind > of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least > thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old > astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty! > > Lee > > From VM Fri Oct 2 09:43:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1473" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "12:18:40" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1473 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10362 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:22:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA10348 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id MAA16001; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:18:40 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810021118.MAA16001@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:18:40 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Statically probably yes. > > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way. > > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing > > magnetic fields in electric motors. > > I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic > fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off > in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved > globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to > remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work. > > I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent > example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or > David can probably give you a better explanation than I can. > You probably misunderstood my post. I did NOT propose to propel the ship with pulsing MAGNETIC fields - I know the "stardrive" scheme would not work (we discussed it some time ago here). I wrote that Kevins electrostatic scheme may work with pulsing ELECTRIC fields, making a rather loose analogy with pulsing magnetic fields that do work in electric motors. I am not sure it will work, anyway - the main objection is that the ship floats within a cloud of charged particles of BOTH polarities. But maybe due to different masses of the particles with opposite charges (protons vs. electrons) some thrust can be generated in some way... -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 2 09:43:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3614" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "21:50:09" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3614 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13284 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA13276 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne9p24.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.88]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08851 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:51:52 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3614BDEA.872ECD8@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AJ Crowl From: AJ Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:50:09 +1000 Hi Group L. Parker wrote: > Zenon, > > > Statically probably yes. > > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way. > > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing > > magnetic fields in electric motors. > > I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic > fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off > in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved > globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to > remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work. It did work, except it was just a "photon" rocket. The pulsations produced microwaves in a beam, thus providing thrust albeit very low thrust. > > > I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent > example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or > David can probably give you a better explanation than I can. If you can make a monopole you have something even better than anti-matter. A monopole is a one-dimensional space-time flaw and it induces PROTON DECAY. In otherwords you can hit it with a beam of protons and get a stream of pions moving at 0.943c coming out the otherside! Almost perfect space-drive, since you don't need to fiddle with anti-matter! Any old junk will do, but hydrogen is best. A related system beams protons at a Q-Ball, which is a quark-aggregate that might also induce a GUT reaction and cause Proton decay. Either one will do. The best would be a lens of distorted space-time, rather than the microscopic specks that monopoles and Q-Balls would manifest as. > > > I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a > first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine. Unless we can crack GUT physics and induce proton-decay or higher-level GUT phase-transitions. You're right - that's the best we can currently design, some sort of fusion drive. I'd like to see a hybrid system, which should get a Ve of ~ +60,000 km/s. That'd be ideal. Using a magnetic-sail to deccelerate it'd be able to reach ~ 0.5 c with a mass-ratio of ~ 20. We could generate anti-matter using collectors constructed from a base on Mercury, but in a lower solar orbit [0.01 - 0.1 AU], somehow stepping-up incident photons into the gamma-ray level, then inducing pair-creation to get anti-protons. > In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up > to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to > put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind > of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least > thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old > astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty! Personally I wouldn't want to send anyone until we could put them in stasis. Just how? Some sort of nano-tech system could wrap them in diamond at a molecular level, I'd guess, but maybe some sort of cryo-system will be more likely. Ideas anyone? > Lee A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile space-colonies. They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook system, and they'd have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal thermal wrapping. With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D reactions. Or maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and that'd become a great fuelling post. If you're going to spend decades between the stars why not go en masse? Adam From VM Fri Oct 2 16:43:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1163" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "18:28:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1163 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17375 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:37:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA17315 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p268.gnt.com [204.49.91.28]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA02846; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:36:59 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdee5c$5becf620$1c5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810021118.MAA16001@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:28:27 -0500 Zenon, > You probably misunderstood my post. > I did NOT propose to propel the ship with pulsing MAGNETIC fields - > I know the "stardrive" scheme would not work (we discussed it > some time ago here). > I wrote that Kevins electrostatic scheme may work with > pulsing ELECTRIC fields, making a rather loose analogy with > pulsing magnetic fields that do work in electric motors. > I am not sure it will work, anyway - the main objection is that > the ship floats within a cloud of charged particles > of BOTH polarities. But maybe due to different masses of > the particles with opposite charges (protons vs. electrons) > some thrust can be generated in some way... > Sorry if I misunderstood. (I'm not sure I understood based on what you just said, so I couldn't have misunderstood, not having understood it in the first place ). Masses are irrelevant the lighter particles are simply accelerated to higher velocities and everything still balances. Now if the laser can produce an imbalance by some trick such as polarization or something, this would be a wonderful idea. I think I would still mount the shipboard lasers in case of emergency though. Lee From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1816" "Sat" "3" "October" "1998" "13:21:51" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: hard space (was: scoops, sails etc.)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1816 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21133 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21120 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne5p31.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.95]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03740 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:23:42 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <36159843.C8F8D89A@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000401bdee5c$60e58b60$1c5b31cc@lparker> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AJ Crowl From: AJ Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: hard space (was: scoops, sails etc.) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 13:21:51 +1000 L. Parker wrote: > Adam, > > > A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile > > space-colonies. > > They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook > > system, and they'd > > have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal > > thermal wrapping. > > With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D > > reactions. Or > > maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and > > that'd become a > > great fuelling post. [which would make higher Vfinal possible, maybe ~ 0.3c.] > If you're going to spend decades between the > > stars why not > > go en masse? > > We could creep out through the Oort cloud one rock at a time like some sort > of interstellar fungus... > > Better hope some alien doesn't come along with a bottle of Lysol! Hehehehe. Of course if they're able to manipulate space-time they might just decide to cut our world-lines. Oort Cloud creeping is a silly scenario unless comets are worth inhabiting, though just what sort of social group would find that worthwhile I don't know. Buddhist monks? They could live off starlight. As for top-speeds I wonder if 0.2c isn't something of an upper-limit. Alan Bond in the JBIS wrote an article years ago on the amount of erosion starships would have to handle from dust, and he calculated that a maximum speed between 0.2 - 0.25 c. I can imagine using UV-lasers to ionise dust and strong fields to deflect it, but just how much of this is necessary and how practical is yet to be determined. Perhaps fast starships [+0.3c] will be well armed - with phasers and photon torpedoes maybe? They'd certainly be well shielded too, making conflict very interesting. Perhaps fleets will be needed after all? > > > Lee "We come in peace, but we'll shot to kill if you piss us off." Adam From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["960" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "00:27:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 960 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16370 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16352 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UWDa10153 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <591ea6a6.36184ab4@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:32 EDT In a message dated 10/1/98 3:44:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a > >first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine. > >In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up > >to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to > >put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind > >of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least > >thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old > >astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty! > > > >Lee I agree on the fusion bit, but I'm pretty skeptical that you could make a 5-10 person ship workable (or survivable). Also thats far to few people to do a decent amount of exploration of a star system. At best you'ld go, drop a frag, and come home. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["799" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "00:27:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 799 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16379 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16363 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GZEa22052 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:34 EDT In a message dated 10/2/98 6:57:29 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile space- colonies. >They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook system, and they'd >have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal thermal wrapping. >With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D reactions. Or >maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and that'd become a >great fuelling post. If you're going to spend decades between the stars why not >go en masse? > >Adam This runs into the two big questions: - Who'ld pay for all this? - Why? We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino. a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1054" "Sun" "4" "October" "1998" "23:51:48" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1054 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22987 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22981 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26881 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA13643; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13848.27780.640084.886987@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com> References: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:48 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > This runs into the two big questions: > - Who'ld pay for all this? > - Why? > > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino. > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top. With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar exploration. When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of technology and access to resources that implies, answering the question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be far less. In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of that. From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3922" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "00:10:17" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3922 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17910 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA17903 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne9p54.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.118]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24649 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:12:10 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3618D340.77D217C5@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com> <13848.27780.640084.886987@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AJ Crowl From: AJ Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 00:10:17 +1000 Hi Group Steve VanDevender wrote: > KellySt@aol.com writes: > > This runs into the two big questions: > > - Who'ld pay for all this? > > - Why? > > > > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino. > > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top. > > With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I > can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar > exploration. > > When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of > technology and access to resources that implies, answering the > question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" > will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital > colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build > interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the > expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be > far less. > > In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far > different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic > sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of > that. Thanks for the eloquent reply. The most believable scenario achieveable by 2050 that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt-based infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then pulse propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with neutron damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power scenarios, but they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a bit hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or fusion systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050? I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is filled with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is underway. That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off-Earth than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common-place. Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber-augmentation, plus various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be able to go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void. I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are fusion drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion pulse, we haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high-Tc superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what is possible? If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What would it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand HLLV flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs, and the risks of terrorism and so forth. So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class liberals that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety of reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are more likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a life, it'll be a life. So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small scale Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's really silly. Adam From VM Mon Oct 5 17:47:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2100" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "19:37:15" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "42" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2100 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27354 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA27348 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p231.gnt.com [204.49.89.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA14037; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bdf0c1$789c3760$e75931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3618D340.77D217C5@ozemail.com.au> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "AJ Crowl" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:37:15 -0500 Jeez Adam, Excuse me while I re-plate the contacts on my modem card...it got kind of hot . Several months ago I began a project which I posted a preview link to on my website, outlining a timeline for the next 50 to 100 years. I got some really good suggestions and some replies that it looked more like fiction than a serious discussion relevant to this list. It had a purpose however, and your diatribe hits precisely home. My point then was (and still is) that we are attempting to define technologies and design a ship without considering the infrastructure required to make ANY of this possible. As you and Steve both intimate, there is more to building a starship than throwing a bunch of hardware together and aiming it at the nearest star. I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in 2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc. The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable, dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so. The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to a point where we can send out an interstellar probe. In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for one thing - a new chance on a new world. Lee From VM Tue Oct 6 09:30:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2281" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "13:13:25" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2281 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05518 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:17:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA05492 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA02364; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:13:25 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810061213.NAA02364@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:13:25 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > [...]> > I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time > studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and > individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected > advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in > 2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc. > > The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its > infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production > infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable, > dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a > little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American > frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so. > > The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space > exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the > development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to > a point where we can send out an interstellar probe. > That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System. As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible (or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here. The Mars Society awaits us... > In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. > Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even > thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for > one thing - a new chance on a new world. > Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way... Regards, -- Zenon * * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * * http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan] From VM Tue Oct 6 09:30:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["39966" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "07:18:58" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "884" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 39966 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05872 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:20:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA05867 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA01986 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:20:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bdf123$7e890420$c25931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2] Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:58 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com] On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:08 PM Subject: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2] [ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ] [ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ] [continued from part 1] The Mars Underground Emerges: The Founding Convention of the Mars Society by Keith Cowing Introduction Boulder, Colorado has been the temporary base camp for Earthbound Martians for more than a decade. Every few summers, they roll into town for one in a series of "Case for Mars" conferences wherein a diverse mixture of scientists, engineers, and space enthusiasts (the so-called "Mars Underground") have gathered to keep the dialog going -- even if NASA had apparently lost interest. This summer there was another Mars meeting in Boulder. Unlike all previous meetings, this one came in the wake of the new and exciting information from Mars: the Mars Pathfinder landing and the Mars Global Surveyor mission. Add in the residual excitement from the ALH84001 discoveries, and Mars was a hot topic for the first time since the Viking days This summer, the Mars Underground finally came out of hiding - with a vengeance. The Attendees The attendees came from both predictable and unpredictable backgrounds. While the overwhelming portion of the participants were white males 25-50 with scientific or engineering backgrounds, there was a surprising number of females, children, the elderly, and people of color. Indeed, I'd say that there was more diversity than I had expected to see -- and was very pleased to see this. It was this diversity of backgrounds, all drawn together by an interest in Mars, which made this conference special. Once you got beyond the obvious categories, you really saw some spectacular diversity. Political backgrounds ranged from left to right, from environmentalists and feminists to archconservative nationalists and libertarians. One common characteristic was pervasive and made all other characteristics of secondary importance: these people are explorers, visionaries, and pioneers. Whether or not they actually have the ability or opportunity to go to Mars themselves was irrelevant: this crowd represented the broad mix needed to make it possible for humans to walk on Mars. By the end of the conference, it certainly became clear to me that the white male bias was misleading, and possibly only a temporary phenomenon. These people were all Martians. While the word has yet to get out to everyone, it is now well on its way thanks to this event. The Organizers The organizers consisted of Bob Zubrin, his entire family, and just about anyone in Boulder he could arm twist into helping. While there were the inevitable (minor) glitches here and there the organizers managed to pull off a comfortable, friendly gathering, one where the participants joined in whenever needed to help make things work. I guess you could say everyone helped organize and run his meeting -- and it showed. Something needed to emerge from this conference and everyone seemed to feel that they were going to help craft that outcome. The Presentations and the Presenters Presentations covered the entire range of topics you'd expect at a conference on Mars -- plus quite a number you would not. Notable among the speakers were astronauts John Young and Scott Horowitz; former NASA Exploration Office head Mike Griffin; JPL Mars mission scientists Matt Golombek and Mike Manning; extremeophile biologist Penny Boston; NASA Ames scientists Chris McKay, Carol Stoker, and Larry Lemke; Mars Society founder Bob Zubrin; and Space Frontier president Rick Tumlinson. Topics covered living off the land, mission design, propulsion technologies, colonization sociology, politics, and the arts. With an attendance of 600 and several hundred presenters, this had to be the highest presenter to participant ratio I have ever seen! With so many presentations, there were often 5 or more simultaneous sessions underway. I eventually found myself surfing sessions so as to try and get a representative flavor of the whole event. A visit to the Mars Society website is perhaps the only fitting way to truly appreciate the breadth of topics discussed. Having attended innumerable scientific and technical meetings, I was immediately struck at how well attended each and every session was. Rooms were frequently filled beyond capacity, people were very polite, and every effort was made to stay on schedule. Night sessions were equally jammed. The biggest surprise was that the very last session of the meeting was heavily attended. These people wanted to drink in as much about Mars as they possibly could. Diversity Breeds Controversy There was certainly no shortage of opinions expressed at this conference - which is what made it so interesting. Meetings of traditional organizations such as the AIAA or AAS can be so orchestrated and sanitized that they can be sleep inducing. This crowd was spontaneous and interactive on and off stage. Perhaps the most dynamic event was the evening session held on Terraforming. As far as I am able to tell, with 600 people in the auditorium, this was the largest single assembly of people ever convened to discuss the deliberate alteration of another planet. Although the organizers had intended to have a range of opinions represented on the panel, last minute changes resulted in a panel that was generally pro-terraforming. The most extreme example of the pro-terraformers was Lowell Woods from Stanford University. His blatantly pro-America, manifest destiny inspired message that humans had an obligation to terraform Mars got the audience going. While some panel members sought to soften Woods views, many people remained extremely opposed to Woods and let their feelings be known. Overall, the premise of all remarks was not if to terraform; rather it was more an issue of when and how. By the time the night was over it became abundantly clear that the Mars Society represented a very nice cross section of all of the electorate. It also became clear that the Society has growing pains ahead as it strives to become a truly international organization, not one with an Americentric focus and base of support. The Rally Cry The meeting ended with a banquet followed by an organizing rally. Once the attendees had been given an introduction to the avowed aims of the Mars Society, they all voted unanimously to approve its charter. This was followed by an open microphone organizing rally where the enthusiasm and diversity of the attendees once again became evident. This was then followed by a splintering off of people into chapters organized by geography, which ranged from Mozambique to Washington DC. When the university began to close the doors for the evening, these groups moved out into the darkness and continued to organize. The Outcome -- And The Road Ahead Within a few days people had settled back at home and the email and web activity started. For my part, I updated my Whole Mars Catalog so as to have a Mars Society hot button on every page. Meanwhile, the Mars Society website leapt into action and has been constantly updated ever since. Local chapters and focus groups set up mailing lists and the email traffic began. Now, two months after the event, things have settled down a bit. This is to be expected -- the initial hoopla spawned at the meeting has collided with the reality of what everyone had waiting for them back home. As with all nascent political organizations (make no doubt, politics is at the core of what the Mars Society is all about), the challenge before the Society is to transform the heady enthusiasm of campaign rallies into the drudgery of going door to door. This aspect of the task is not as glamorous or immediately satisfying, but it is what will be required if the Mars Society is to awaken and focus the public's interest such that real changes can be made. Based upon what I saw in Boulder, I have to say that kilo for kilo, this crowd has the highest energy density I have ever seen in a space oriented organization, energy which will suit them well as they tackle the big tasks ahead. Keith Cowing is editor of NASA Watch, The Astrobiology Web, and The Whole Mars Catalog. Spaceweek Organizers Sought by Spaceweek Pro-space individuals and organizations are invited to help put a global "spotlight" on space via Spaceweek, an annual event consisting of many simultaneous activities and media coverage. "Space needs its Earth Day," said Dennis Stone, volunteer President of Spaceweek International Association (SIA), a non-profit organization based in Houston. "By cooperating in an annual media event, the pro-space community can demonstrate grass roots support for space." Spaceweek is now celebrated during the first full week of March of each year. In 1999, this will be March 7-13. It was moved two years ago to these new dates to impact education. "During the old Spaceweek dates in July, we completely missed the schools. Now Spaceweek benefits the classroom at the same time it involves the mass public in space," Stone said. The following help is needed across the pro-space community: * Individuals to serve as city, regional, and state Spaceweek coordinators * Organizations to hold special public space events during Spaceweek * Help in encouraging teachers to use space in the classroom during Spaceweek Events held during Spaceweek have included space exhibits, star parties, model rocket launches, space festivals, etc. It can be a simple as helping a library feature space books that week, or as bold as organizing and publicizing a space-theme parade. For additional ideas on events your organization can hold, please see www.spaceweek.org. Coordinators are needed to encourage groups in their area to hold events, and to help attract media coverage. To serve as a coordinator, please notify SIA of your desired geographical region via email to admin@spaceweek.org. We will let you know if that area is available. If your group holds an event during Spaceweek, please notify SIA by early January of the planned location, date, time, and description via email to admin@spaceweek.org. SIA encourages event holders to report attendance and media coverage after Spaceweek is over. SIA is an independent, non-advocacy, non-membership organization founded in 1981 solely to promote participation in Spaceweek by the entire space community. It does not promote any single company, country, policy, etc. Rather, the messages sent out during Spaceweek are determined by the event organizers themselves. To help encourage teachers to use space during Spaceweek, SIA recently created the Spaceweek Activities Guide. The guide, available at www.spaceweek.org, includes science and math activities using the excitement of space that can be easily tailored by K-12 teachers. *** Book Reviews *** by Jeff Foust Just Visiting This Planet Just Visiting This Planet: Merlin Answers More Questions About Everything Under the Sun, Moon, and Stars by Neil de Grasse Tyson Main Street Books (Doubleday), 1998 softcover, 336 pp., illus. ISBN 0-385-48837-8 US$12.95/C$17.95 Since the late 1970s Stardate, a magazine published by the McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas, has featured a question-and-answer column written by "Merlin", an omniscient visitor from the Andromeda Galaxy. Since 1983 the column has been written by Neil de Grasse Tyson, now the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City. "Just Visiting This Planet" is a collection of Merlin's answers to a variety of questions about all aspects of astronomy. The answers here range from a couple of pages down to a single word ("No"), providing just enough information to answer the questions without going to excessive detail. The writing style is intended to be witty, and it succeeds, although it can excessively flip (like the several single-word answers.) Most of the topics covered in the book are pretty basic, if frequently-asked, but for someone looking for witty, readable answers to astronomy questions, "Just Visiting This Planet" will be an enlightening read. Two Physics Books Time: A Traveler's Guide by Clifford A. Pickover Oxford University Press, 1998 hardcover, 285pp., illus. ISBN 0-19-512042-6 US$25.00 Is time travel possible? The question probes the heart of our understanding -- or lack thereof -- of time and space. Clifford A. Pickover explores the topic in detail in "Time: A Traveler's Guide". Using a science-fiction story involving three would-be time travelers in 21st century New York, Pickover describes the physics which explains why time travel may or may not be possible. Pickover doesn't shy away from using physics equations to explain various concepts, but the dialogue among the characters in the story helps explain the concepts at a level an interested layman can understand. You'll be no closer to building a time machine at the end of this book, but you'll have a good feel for the various physics concepts behind time and space. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics by John Archibald Wheeler with Kenneth Ford W. W. Norton, 1998 hardcover, 380pp., illus. ISBN 0-393-04602-7 US$27.95/C$39.99 John Archibald Wheeler is probably best known for the name he gave to a body with gravity so strong that not even light can escape: a "black hole". However, Wheeler has played a key role in physics throughout the 20th century, from this work on the Manhattan Project to various topics in physics research. This autobiography provides a somewhat non-linear look at his life -- starting with his work shortly before and during the war, before going back to his childhood -- and his research. Anyone interested in Wheeler's life and work will find this book a must-read. *** NSS News *** Upcoming Boston NSS Events Thursday, October 15, 7:30pm 545 Main Street, Cambridge (Tech Square), 8th floor "Mission Control Cambridge: NASA's New X-Ray Telescope" by Jonathan McDowell, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics The Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility is NASA's next Great Observatory. It is scheduled to be launched on the Shuttle in early 1999 and will provide the sharpest ever pictures of stars and galaxies seen in X-rays. AXAF will be controlled and operated by the AXAF Science Center, from a mission control center in Kendall Square, Cambridge. Astronomers from all over the world have already planned observations for the first year of AXAF operations. Boston NSS September Lecture Summary by Lynn Olson Chris Carberry, a driving force behind the new NSS Speakers bureau, presented "Space: A Revolution About to Begin" at the September meeting of the Boston Chapter of the National Space Society. The main points were: (1) how space technology affects us now on earth, (2) private ventures, (3) public ventures (e.g. NASA), (4) obstacles to the advancement of the space cause, and (5) speculation about the future. The space progam has produced technology which effects us every day, such as medical diagnostics and smoke detectors. NASA estimates there are over 30,000 spin offs from the space program which are used in the general economy. One study estimates that we have gotten back $15 in benefits for every dollar expended in the space progam. Private ventures are the way that space directly enters the economy. In addition to the major aerospace companies there are a variety of small companies entering the space marketplace with innovative technologies which may greatly lower the cost of doing business in space. The CATS (Cheap Access to Space) prize and X-Prize provide encouragement for some of these efforts. The satellite communications industry seems to be exploding with ventures put forward by Bill Gates and Craig McCaw, Motorola, and others. With the advance of private industry, what is the role of NASA or other publicly funded organizations? One is to push the technological envelope, to test technology which may be too risky for private enterprise, such as single state to orbit vehicles. Another is to explore, to satisfy human curiosity. Missions to Mars, telescopes to peer deep into the past, and other scientific missions fit this mold. Some of the primary obstacles to space advances are regulatory, especially the impact on space business as we move out into space. The "Moon Treaty" makes property rights in space unclear. While licensing exists for launch of commercial space vehicles, there has been no provision for return, making it difficult for companies developing reusable launch vehicles Kistler, in fact, is starting its testing program in Australia because of this issue. Space enthusiasts need to make their opinions on regulations known to people in the government. This talk is one which may be given to local groups to promote the visibility of space in the community. The NSS Speaker's Bureau is looking for volunteers to call libraries to set up talks, support speakers at talks, and to give talks to local groups. Other talks with slides have also been prepared. *** Regular Features *** Jonathan's Space Report No. 373 by Jonathan McDowell [Ed. Note: Go to http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/jsr/jsr.html for back issues and other information about Jonathan's Space Report.] Shuttle and Mir Gennadiy Padalka and Sergey Avdeev have completed one month in space, continuing their mission on the Mir orbital station. On Sep 15 they put on spacesuits, depressurized the PKhO compartment of the Mir core module and entered Spektr at 2000 UTC. They reconnected some cables for the solar panel steering mechanism and closed the hatch at 2030 UTC. The PKhO was then repressurized. Discovery has been connected to the external tank and boosters in High Bay 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building. It was rolled out to pad 39B on Sep 21. Recent Launches * Ariane launches PAS 7 Arianespace successfully launched an Ariane 44LP rocket on Sep 16, placing the PAS 7 satellite in orbit. PAS-7 was built by Space Systems/Loral and is a FS-1300 class satellite with 14 C-band and 30 Ku-band transponders. It is owned by Panamsat, whose Galaxy 10 satellite was destroyed in an Aug 27 launch failure. The Ariane 44LP has two solid PAP boosters and two liquid PAL boosters attached to the Ariane 4 first stage. The H-10-3 liquid hydrogen fuelled third stage completed its burn 18 min after launch. The PAS 7 satellite separated 21 min after launch into a supersynchronous 140 x 54755 x 7.0 deg transfer orbit - I believe this is the first time that an Ariane launch has used the supersynchronous technique. On Sep 18, PAS 7 was in a 10082 x 54599 km x 2.2 deg orbit after initial burns of its Marquardt R-4D liquid apogee motor. PAS series satellites: Type Launch v. Launch date 1998 position PAS 1 GE Series 3000 Ariane 4 1988 Jun 15 Atlantic 44.9W PAS 2 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1994 Jul 8 Pacific 169.0E PAS 3 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1994 Dec 1 Launch failure PAS 4 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1995 Aug 3 Indian 68.5E PAS 3R Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1996 Jan 12 Indian 91.5E PAS 6 Loral FS-1300 Ariane 4 1996 Aug 8 Atlantic 43.2W PAS 5 Hughes HS-601HP Proton 1997 Aug 28 Atlantic 58.0W PAS 7 Loral FS-1300 Ariane 4 1998 Sep 16 Indian 68.5E (planned) * Orbital Sciences launches Orbcomms Eight more Orbcomm satellites were launched on Sep 23. The Orbital Sciences L-1011 Stargazer aircraft took off from Wallops Flight Facility at 1610 UTC and flew to the drop point at around 37.0N 72.0W. 12 km over the Atlantic Ocean (this guesstimate location is based on info courtesy of Keith Stein). The Pegasus XL was dropped at 1706 UTC and the winged first stage ignited its Alliant solid motor 5 seconds later. The three solid Pegasus XL stages fired successfully to place the payload stack in a 254 x 446 km x 45.0 km orbit. The Primex Aerospace HAPS-Lite hydrazine upper stage then made a burn to increase apogee to around 800 km, and the stack coasted for about 44 minutes until a second HAPS burn circularized the orbit. The eight Orbcomm satellites were then deployed over a 15 minute period into an 810 km near-circular orbit. Finally, the HAPS stage made a final burn to deplete its fuel, lowering its perigee by 100 km. The mission profile was similar to previous Orbcomm launches, except that the Pegasus third stage apogee is significantly lower, with a correspondingly larger HAPS burn. * Globalstar failure In my description of the Zenit launch failure I said that Yuzhnoe officials provided incorrect information about the progress of the mission to Globalstar. A more recent Globalstar statement implies that both Yuzhnoe's and Globalstar's people simply misinterpreted the noisy data available to them. This is by no means the first time that a launch success has been announced and later retracted - it happened several times in the early days of the space program, and more recently the Landsat 6 satellite was even cataloged by Space Command for a while before it was discovered to be in a submarine orbit. North Korea, meanwhile, has not yet acknowledged that its satellite never reached orbit. Table of Recent Launches Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission INTL. DES. DES. Aug 2 1624 Orbcomm FM13 ) Pegasus XL Wallops Comsat 46A Orbcomm FM14 ) Comsat 46B Orbcomm FM15 ) Comsat 46C Orbcomm FM16 ) Comsat 46D Orbcomm FM17 ) Comsat 46E Orbcomm FM18 ) Comsat 46F Orbcomm FM19 ) Comsat 46G Orbcomm FM20 ) Comsat 46H Aug 12 1130 MERCURY Titan 4A Canaveral SLC41 Sigint F02 Aug 13 0943 Soyuz TM-28 Soyuz-U Baykonur LC1 Spaceship 47A Aug 19 2301 Iridium SV03) CZ-2C/SD Taiyuan Comsat 48A Iridium SV76) Comsat 48B Aug 25 2307 ST-1 Ariane 44P Kourou Comsat 49A Aug 27 0117 Galaxy X Delta III Canaveral SLC17B Comsat F03 Aug 30 0031 Astra 2A Proton Baykonur Comsat 50A Aug 31 0307 Kwangmyongsong 1 Taepo Dong Musudan Test F04 Sep 8 2113 Iridium SV77) Delta 7920 Vandenberg SLC2 Comsat 51E Iridium SV79) Comsat 51D Iridium SV80) Comsat 51C Iridium SV81) Comsat 51B Iridium SV82) Comsat 51A Sep 9 2029 Globalstar FM5 ) Zenit-2 Baykonur Comsat F05 Globalstar FM7 ) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM9 ) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM10) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM11) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM12) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM13) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM16) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM17) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM18) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM20) Comsat F05 Globalstar FM21) Comsat F05 Sep 16 0631 PAS 7 Ariane 44LP Kourou Comsat 52A Sep 23 0506 Orbcomm FM21 ) Pegasus XL/HAPS Wallops I Comsat 53A Orbcomm FM22 ) Comsat 53B Orbcomm FM23 ) Comsat 53C Orbcomm FM24 ) Comsat 53D Orbcomm FM25 ) Comsat 53E Orbcomm FM26 ) Comsat 53F Orbcomm FM27 ) Comsat 53G Orbcomm FM28 ) Comsat 53H Current Shuttle Processing Status _________________________________ Orbiters Location Mission Launch Due OV-102 Columbia OPF Bay 3 STS-93 Jan ? OV-103 Discovery LC39B STS-95 Oct 29 OV-104 Atlantis Palmdale OMDP OV-105 Endeavour OPF Bay 1 STS-88 Dec 3? MLP2/RSRM-68/ET-98/OV-103 LC39B STS-95 Space Calendar by Ron Baalke [Ed. Note: visit http://newproducts.jpl.nasa.gov/calendar/ for the complete calendar] Oct ?? - Kitt Peak National Observatory's 40th Birthday (1958) Oct ?? - Space Memorabilia Auction, Beverly Hills, California Oct 01 - Asteroid 236 Honoria at Opposition (10.5 Magnitude) Oct 01 - Asteroid 1998 SG2 Near-Earth Flyby (0.217 AU) Oct 01 - Kuiper Belt Object 1992 QB1 at Opposition (39.906 AU - 23.1 Magnitude) Oct 01 - NASA's 40th Birthday (1958) Oct 01-03 - 1998 National Aerospace Conference, Dayton, Ohio Oct 01-03 - Pushing The Envelope III: From The Mountains Of Earth To The Mountains Of The Moon, Houston, Texas Oct 02 - STEX/ATEx Taurus Launch Oct 02 - Meteorite Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland Oct 02 - 4th Annual Toys, Games and Multimedia Workshop: Playing Among The Planets 98, Pasadena, California Oct 02-03 - Astro Assembly 98, North Scituate, Rhode Island Oct 03 - Asteroid 1998 QO52 Closest Approach To Earth (0.489 AU) Oct 04 - Moon Occults Jupiter Oct 04 - Asteroid 185 Eunike at Opposition (10.9 Magnitude) Oct 04 - Asteroid 532 Herculina at Opposition (10.7 Magnitude) Oct 04 - Asteroid 1998 ST27 Near-Earth Flyby (0.220 AU) Oct 04 - Kuiper Belt Object 1993 SB at Opposition (30.112 AU - 22.9 Magnitude) Oct 04 - Great Debate In 1998: The Nature Of The Universe, Washington DC Oct 04-09 - Optical/IR Interferometry Workshop, Flagstaff, Arizona Oct 05 - Asteroid 14 Irene at Opposition (10.6 Magnitude) Oct 05 - Asteroid 6852 (1985 CN2) Closest Approach To Earth (1.334 AU) Oct 05 - Asteroid 1997 WU22 Closest Approach To Earth (1.353 AU) Oct 05 - Venus Revealed Lecture, New York, New York Oct 05-07 - Workshop on Emerging Scatterometer Applications, Noordwijk, The Netherlands Oct 05-07 - 5th International Conference On Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, San Diego, California Oct 05-07 - Bulges Mini-Workshop: When And How Do Bulges Form and Evolve?, Baltimore, Maryland Oct 05-09 - Solar Wind 9 Conference, Nantucket, Massachusetts Oct 06 - Comet P/1998 QP54 Perihelion (1.885 AU) Oct 06 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 RQ20 at Opposition (38.550 AU - 22.9 Magnitude) Oct 07 - Eutelsat-W2/ Sirius-3 Ariane 4 Launch Oct 07 - Asteroid 1998 SB15 Near-Earth Flyby (0.127 AU) Oct 07 - Asteroid 5255 Johnsophie Closest Approach To Earth (1.746 AU) Oct 07 - Kuiper Belt Object 1997 SZ10 at Opposition (30.617 AU - 23.5 Magnitude) Oct 07 - Kuiper Belt Object 1995 QZ9 at Opposition (33.987 AU - 22.9 Magnitude) Oct 08 - Hot Bird 5 Atlas 2AS Launch Oct 08 - Asteroid 1998 PG Near-Earth Flyby (0.247 AU) Oct 08 - Asteroid 5051 (1984 SM) Closest Approach To Earth (1.116 AU) Oct 08 - Ejnar Hertzsprung's 125th Birthday (1873) Oct 08-11 - 5th Annual Enchanted Skies Star Party, Socorro, New Mexico Oct 09 - Moon Occults Aldebaran (Daylight Occultation) Oct 09 - Draconids Meteor Shower Peak Oct 09 - Asteroid 1998 QC1 Near-Earth Flyby (0.181 AU) Oct 09 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 SZ4 at Opposition (29.285 AU - 22.7 Magnitude) Oct 09 - Radarsat Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland Oct 09-11 - 7th Space Frontier Conference, Los Angeles, California Oct 10 - Comet McNaught-Hughes Closest Approach to Earth (1.707 AU) Oct 10 - 15th Anniversary (1983), Venera 15 Venus Orbit Insertion Oct 11 - Asteroid 1994 TF2 Near-Earth Flyby (0.275 AU) Oct 11 - Asteroid 1998 FR11 Near-Earth Flyby (0.346 AU) Oct 11 - Asteroid 1620 Geographos Closest Approach To Earth (1.011 AU) Oct 11 - Asteroid 6904 (1990 QW1) Closest Approach To Earth (1.294 AU) Oct 11 - Asteroid 5731 Zeus Closest Approach To Earth (1.610 AU) Oct 11 - 30th Anniversary (1968), Apollo 7 Launch Oct 11 - Wilhelm Olbers' 240th Birthday (1758) Oct 11-16 - 30th Annual Meeting Of the Division For Planetary Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin Oct 12 - Mars Polar Lander Arrives At Kennedy Space Center Oct 12 - Asteroid 1990 BA Closest Approach To Earth (0.815 AU) Oct 12 - Asteroid 6020 Miyamoto Closest Approach To Earth (1.219 AU) Oct 12-14 - 9th Annual October Astrophysics Conference, College Park, Maryland Oct 12-16 - Workshop On Dust In The Interstellar Medium, Bern, Switzerland Oct 13 - Asteroid 1998 QP63 Near-Earth Flyby (0.392 AU) Oct 13 - Asteroid 1998 RR2 Closest Approach To Earth (0.584 AU) Oct 13 - Asteroid 7655 Adamries Closest Approach To Earth (1.412 AU) Oct 13 - British Interplanetary Society's 65th Birthday (1933) Oct 14 - NEAR, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #15 (TCM-15) Oct 14 - Comet Lovas 1 Perihelion (1.692 AU) Oct 14 - Asteroid 1036 Ganymed Closest Approach To Earth (0.464 AU) Oct 14 - Asteroid 1998 ST4 Closest Approach To Earth (0.947 AU) Oct 14 - Asteroid 6893 (1983 RS3) Closest Approach To Earth (1.222 AU) Oct 14 - 15th Anniversary (1983), Venera 16 Venus Orbit Insertion Oct 14-16 - ESO Conference on Chemical Evolution From Zero to High Redshift, Garching, Germany Oct 14-16 - 9th International Conference On Adaptive Structures and Technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts Oct 14-16 - Inspection 98, Houston, Texas Oct 15 - Asteroid 6047 (1991 TB1) Near-Earth Flyby (0.375 AU) Oct 15 - Comet C/1998 M6 (Montani) Perihelion (5.970 AU) Oct 15 - STARDUST Lecture, Pasadena, California Oct 15 - Chuck Yeager Lecture, Washington DC Oct 15-20 -[Sep 25] Mid-Atlantic Star Party, Central North Carolina Oct 16 - Moon Occults Mars Oct 16 - Comet Klemola Closest Approach to Earth (1.522 AU) Oct 16 - Asteroid 4339 Almamater Closest Approach To Earth (0.816 AU) Oct 16 - STARDUST Lecture, Pasadena, California Oct 16 - Aerosels And Climate Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland Oct 16-18 - 20th Custer Astronomy Jamboree, Southold, New York Oct 17 - Iridium 11 Delta 2 Launch Oct 17 - Comet C/1998 P1 (Williams) Perihelion (1.162 AU) Oct 17 - Asteroid 44 Nysa at Opposition (9.8 Magnitude) Oct 18 - Asteroid 1998 OX4 Near-Earth Flyby (0.177 AU) Oct 18 - 5th Anniversary (1993), STS-58 Launch, Space Lab Sciences 2 Oct 18-25 - 15th Annual Okie-Tex Star Party, Fort Davis, Texas Oct 19 - UHF-F9 Atlas 2A Launch Oct 19-22 - 1st International Conference On Mars Polar Science and Exploration, Houston, Texas Oct 19-23 - Chapman Conference On Space Based Radio Observations at Long Wavelengths, Paris, France Oct 20 - ARD/ MAQSAT 3 Ariane 503 Launch Oct 20 - Asteroid 1991 PM5 Closest Approach To Earth (0.951 AU) Oct 20 - Asteroid 7006 (1981 ER31) Closest Approach To Earth (1.615 AU) Oct 20 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TP66 at Opposition (25.403 AU - 20.7 Magnitude) Oct 20-22 - Workshop On Space Exploration and Resources Exploitation (ExploSpace), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy Oct 20-23 - International Conference On The Universe As Seen By ISO, Paris, France Oct 21 - Globalstar-4 Zenit 2 Launch Oct 21 - Orionids Meteor Shower Peak Oct 21 - Asteroid 1996 TR6 Closest Approach To Earth (0.586 AU) Oct 21 - Asteroid 457 Alleghenia Closest Approach To Earth (1.552 AU) Oct 21-23 - 2nd International Workshop On The Retrieval of Bio- and Geo-Physical Parameters From SAR Data For Land Applications, Noordwijk, The Netherlands Oct 21-23 - Remote Sensing Applications Conference, Logan, Utah Oct 22 - SCD-2/Wing Glove Pegasus XL Launch Oct 22 - Asteroid 409 Aspasia Occults SAO 75073 (9.9 Magnitude Star) Oct 22 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TQ66 at Opposition (33.604 AU - 21.9 Magnitude) Oct 22-24 - EVN/JIVE VLBI Symposium #4, Dwingleoo, The Netherlands Oct 23 - Saturn at Opposition Oct 23 - Asteroid 6841 Gottfriedkirch Closest Approach To Earth (1.585 AU) Oct 23-24 - Workship On TeV Astrophysics On Extragalactic Sources, Cambridge, Massachusetts Oct 23-25 - Blackwater Falls Astronomy Weekend, Davis, West Virginia Oct 24 - Galileo, Orbital Trim Maneuver #55 (OTM-55) Oct 24 - Asteroid 1998 SU27 Near-Earth Flyby (0.112 AU) Oct 24 - Asteroid 1998 SC15 Near-Earth Flyby (0.314 AU) Oct 24 - Mars Exploration Teachers Workshop, Pasadena, California Oct 25 - Deep Space 1 Delta 2 Launch Oct 25 - Daylight Savings - Set Clock Back 1 Hour (USA) Oct 25 - Asteroid 106 Dione at Opposition (10.7 Magnitude) Oct 25 - Asteroid 2099 Opik Closest Approach To Earth (0.492 AU) Oct 26 - Asteroid 20 Massalia at Opposition (8.8 Magnitude) Oct 26 - Asteroid 674 Rachele at Opposition (11.0 Magnitude) Oct 26-29 - Annual Meeting Of The Geological Society Of America, Toronto, Canada Oct 26-29 - 34th International Telemetering Conference, San Diego, California Oct 26-29 - 20th Space Simulation Conference, Annapolis, Maryland Oct 26-30 - 6th Huntsville Modeling Workshop: The New Millennium Magnetosphere, Guntersville, Alabama Oct 27 - Asteroid 1998 QK56 Near-Earth Flyby (0.285 AU) Oct 27 - Asteroid 1989 NA Closest Approach To Earch (1.524 AU) Oct 27 - 25th Anniversary (1973), Canon City Meteorite Fall (Hit Garage) Oct 27-30 - Symposium On Solar Physics With Radio Observations, Kiyosato, Japan Oct 28 - Asteroid 7358 (1995 YA3) Closest Approach to Earth (0.438 AU) Oct 28 - Asteroid 1508 Kemi Closest Approach to Earth (1.201 AU) Oct 28-29 - First International Workshop On Radiowave Propagation Modelling For SatComm Services at Ku-Band and Above, Noordwijk, The Netherlands Oct 28-30 - Defense & Civil Space Programs Conference, Huntsville, Alabama Oct 29 - STS-95 Launch, Discovery, Spacehab-SM Oct 29 - Progress M-40/Znamya-2.5 Soyuz U Launch (Russia) Oct 29 - Tethys Occults PPM 145101 (6.6 Magnitude Star) Oct 29 - Comet C/1998 M1 (LINEAR) Perihelion (3.110 AU) Oct 29 - Asteroid 1994 TA Closest Approach to Earth (15.923 AU - 23.7 Magnitude) Oct 29-Nov 01 - 8th Annual Meeting Of The American Association Of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO), Cambridge, Massachusetts Oct 30 - Fengyun-1C Long March 4B Launch (China) Oct 30 - Afristar/ GE-5 Ariane 4 Launch Oct 30 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TL66 at Opposition (34.099 AU - 20.4 Magnitude) Oct 30 - Mars Pathfinder Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland Oct 30-31 - NOAA Meeting On Satellites In Our Everyday World, Seattle, Washington Oct 31 - Moon Occults Jupiter Oct 31 - Asteroid 6 Hebe Occults GSC 6255-1346 (9.2 Magnitude Star) Oct 31-Nov 06 - IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Bellevue, Washington ================================== This is the current issue of "SpaceViews" (tm), published by the Boston Chapter, National Space Society (NSS), distributed in electronic form. It is also sent as a 8 to 12 page double column newsletter via US Mail. You may re-distribute this electronically for non-profit use as long as the entire contents (including this notice) are intact, and you send us the names of all recipients (include us in your distribution list). MAILING LIST INFORMATION: Subscribing and Unsubscribing: To stop receiving the large monthly 'SpaceViews' newsletter, send this e-mail message: To: MajorDomo@spaceviews.com Subject: anything UNsubscribe SpaceViews To receive electronic copies of this SpaceViews newsletter and/or other information about space and NSS, send an e-mail message similar to the following. This example subscribes you to 4 separate mailing lists which are described below. Of course, fill in your own Internet address where is says "YourAddress@StateU.edu" and your real name inside the parenthesis. Try to send it from you own account on your own computer, so that the message appears to be from you. To: MajorDomo@spaceviews.com Subject: anything subscribe SpaceViews YourAddress@StateU.edu (Full Name) which YourAddress@StateU.edu help These subscriptions requests are now handled automatically. The subject line is ignored. The body of the message should contain commands such as: help - send me more information about these commands, which - which lists am I on, info - mail me a description of a list, UNsubscribe - remove me from a list, Subscribe - add me to a list, Although it is possible to omit your address and name, please include them when subscribing so that we know who you really are, and to avoid problems like having the name of a workstation inadvertently embedded in you address. Problems: To get a message to a real person, mail to: SpaceViews-Approval@spaceviews.com ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS: Articles, letters to the editor, chapter updates, andother similar submissions for SpaceViews are always welcome. The deadline for each month's issue is the 20th of the month before (i.e. the August deadline is July 20). The preferred method of submission is ASCII text files by e-mail; send articles and other submissions to jeff@spaceviews.com. If you would like to submit articles in other formats, or would like to submit articles by another method than e-mail, contact the editor, Jeff Foust, at the above e-mail address. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION: Copyright (C) 1998 by Boston Chapter of National Space Society, a non-profit educational organization 501(c)3. Permission is hereby granted to redistribute for non-profit use, provided: 1. no modifications are made (except for e-mail delivery info.) 2. this copyright notice is included, 3. you inform Boston NSS of the names of all recipients This permission may be withdrawn at any time. All other rights reserved. Some articles are individually copyrighted (C) by their authors. Excerpts cannot be used, except for reviews and criticisms, without written permission of NSS, Boston Chapter. (We will try to respond by e-mail within four business days.) -Jeff Foust (editor, jeff@spaceviews.com), -Bruce Mackenzie (email distribution, bam@draper.com) -Roxanne Warniers (mailings, rwarnier@colybrand.com) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____ | "SpaceViews" (tm) -by Boston Chapter // \ // | of the National Space Society (NSS) // (O) // | Dedicated to the establishment // \___// | of a spacefaring civilization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- President: Elaine Mullen Board of Directors: Michael Burch Vice President: Larry Klaes Jeff Foust Secretary: Lynn Olson Bruce Mackenzie Treasurer: Roxanne Warniers John Malloy ---------- - - To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address: - To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com - Subject: anything - unsubscribe SpaceViews - - E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net - - SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS), - copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society - www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com) From VM Tue Oct 6 09:44:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["47547" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "07:18:46" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "1015" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 47547 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25342 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25302 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA05658 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA01831 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:43 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bdf123$77d2e060$c25931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2] Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:46 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com] On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 5:02 PM Subject: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2] [ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ] [ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ] S P A C E V I E W S Volume Year 1998, Issue 10 October 1998 http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/10/ *** News *** NASA Plans to Help Support Russian Space Agency Gingrich, Congress Criticize NASA Shuttle Rolls Out for Glenn Launch Two New Extrasolar Planets Discovered Engineers Regain Control of SOHO Gamma Ray Burst Had Effect on Atmosphere Mir Cosmonauts Complete Brief Internal Spacewalk Astronomers See Dust Disks in Binary Star System Mars Global Surveyor Resumes Aerobraking Senate Hearing Explores Government Launch Incentives SpaceViews Event Horizon Other News *** Articles *** The Beginnings of America's Man in Space Program [part 2] The Mars Underground Emerges: The Founding Convention of the Mars Society Spaceweek Organizers Sought *** Book Reviews *** Just Visiting This Planet Two Physics Books *** NSS News *** Upcoming Boston NSS Events Boston NSS September Lecture Summary *** Regular Features *** Jonathan's Space Report No. 373 Space Calendar Editor's Note: As you are no doubt aware by now, we have had significant problems e-mailing recent issues of SpaceViews. Our old mailing list provider, ARI, could not handle the large size of the list (SpaceViews now has about 7,500 subscribers.) We switched to one provider, but they had technical problems as well that prevented the delivery of the September 15 issue. However, we have found a new home for the list that should end these problems. If you did not receive some of the past issues, the best way to get them is by FTP: September 15: ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/980915.txt September 1: ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/text/spaceviews.9809.txt August 15: ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/980815.txt These issues are also archived on the SpaceViews Web site, http://www.spaceviews.com . If neither of these options is available to you, please contact me at jeff@spaceviews.com and I will mail you a copy of any missing issues. Keep in mind that I may not be able to respond immediately because of other mail and upcoming travel plans. We hope our mailing list problems are behind us and we can continue to deliever the latest space news and article to you in a timely manner. Feel free to e-mail me with any questions, comments, suggestions, or concerns you may have about SpaceViews. Sincerely, Jeff Foust Editor, SpaceViews jeff@spaceviews.com *** News *** NASA Plans to Help Support Russian Space Agency NASA is seeking up to $660 million in additional funds over the next four years to provide desperately needed money for the Russian Space Agency (RSA), whose funding problems pose a serious threat to the International Space Station, the Washington Post reported Monday, September 21. According to the Post, NASA is seeking $60 million now to purchase additional Russian hardware, plus an additional $40 million by the end of the year to help keep the troubled Service Module from falling further behind schedule. The $40 million would be the first installment in up to $150 million a year that NASA would pay to the RSA over four years to support their work on the station. The $150 million a year would represent about half of the annual costs Russia would incur for the station, and would be a substantial fraction of the RSA's overall budget. "In effect, we're buying $150 million per year worth of insurance" on the station, Joseph Rothenberg, NASA associate administrator for space flight told the Post. "A year ago, we wouldn't have predicted things would be this bad." While NASA is willing to pay half of Russia's space station assembly costs, Rothenberg warned, "we can't be sure they'll come up with the other half, though." The Port reported that, rather than welcoming the addition funds, Russian officials are holding out for more money than the U.S. is willing to pay for certain pieces of hardware. Rothenberg said that since Russia sees its space program as a source of national pride, they may have trouble continuing to support the station if their role in the project is reduced. Also of concern is the new Russian government installed this month, the third one this year. "We collectively don't really understand the implications of the Primakov government yet," NASA administrator Dan Goldin told the Post, referring to new Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov. The initial $100 million to go to Russia will likely pay for two Soyuz capsules that will be used as interim station "lifeboats" until a permanent escape vehicle, based on the X-38, is put into place. As reported last week, NASA would pay the money now but not have to take delivery on the Soyuz capsules until 2002. NASA still plans to launch the first segments of the International Space Station -- the Russian-built Zarya control module and the American-built Unity docking module -- in November and December of this year, respectively, Rothenberg told the Post. However, the launch of the Service module may slip from April to July of 1999, even if the RSA receives the money needed now to complete the module. Gingrich, Congress Criticize NASA Key members of both the House and the Senate have spoken out in opposition of a NASA proposal to financially support the Russian Space Agency, while Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich leveled strong criticism against the agency in general. Speaking at a press conference Thursday, September 24, Gingrich lashed out at NASA, claiming that the space agency was bureaucratic and slow. "We have got to break out of slowing down and making space as boring as possible, which seems to be one of NASA's major achievements," he said. Calling current launch systems "slow, cumbersome, and extraordinary expensive", Gingrich said there was no technological reason why NASA could not have done more. "If you go back and look at the last 30 years, and ask yourself how far could we have gotten, there is no reason today we aren't permanently on the Moon," he said. "That is entirely an artifact of bureaucracy." Gingrich also spoke out against the current state of the International Space Station, putting the blame for ISS's current problems on the Clinton Administration. "The space station now is a mess," he said, "in large part because this administration got off to a feel-good, manage-bad model." Other members of Congress also voiced concerns about plans reported September 21 where NASA would pay $660 million to Russia over a four-year period to help support their contributions to ISS. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chair of the House Science Committee, said NASA's plans is an acknowledgment by the space agency that putting Russia on the "critical path" for ISS development was a mistake. "NASA's request that the American taxpayer now pay for that mistake while simultaneously treating Russia as an equal partner is unacceptable," Sensenbrenner said. "If the U.S. is to assume greater financial responsibilities, the international agreement with Russia should be renegotiated to reflect Russia's reduced contribution," Sensenbrenner said. "I oppose the Administration's scheme to turn a vital and important science program like the Space Station into more Russian foreign aid." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, also was skeptical of the NASA bailout plan. "The situation in Russia could signal future needed bailouts, and raise concerns over quality control procedures," he said. McCain and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) called on the General Accounting Office to study the proposed funding plan, to see how likely Russia is to meet its obligations if the funding is approved, and whether it would be more cost-effective to simply remove Russia from the program. "American taxpayers deserve to know how this most recent announcement affects the total cost of the space station, a full account of where their dollars would be going, and an assurance that funds will not be diverted for unapproved uses," McCain said. "Only a full justification of these costs is acceptable, especially considering Russia's record as an unreliable financial partner." Shuttle Rolls Out for Glenn Launch Workers at the Kennedy Space Center rolled out the space shuttle Discovery early Monday, September 21, in preparation for an October launch that includes the second flight of John Glenn, and narrowly abvoided having to roll it back just three days later. Discovery was rolled out from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Pad 39B starting at around 2 am EDT (0600 UT) September 21. It took six hours for the shuttle assembly, which includes Discovery, its external fuel tank, and two solid-fuel boosters, to make the 6.8-km (4.2-mile) trek to the pad. The shuttle sports a new paint job, with the round blue NASA "meatball" logo on the left wing and the American flag and the orbiter's name on the right wing. The meatball logo replaces the old NASA "worm" logo on Discovery and the other shuttles, including Atlantis, which completed 10 months of servicing work in California this month. Kennedy Space Center officials canceled late Thursday, September 24, the planned rollback of the space shuttle Discovery after it was clear that a hurricane would pose no threat to the shuttle. The rollback of the shuttle to the safety of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) was prompted by Hurricane Georges, a powerful hurricane approaching the south Florida coast. The shuttle was to begin its six-hour trek from Pad 39B early Thursday morning, but lightning from an unrelated storm system has delayed the move. By Thursday night, the hurricane was forecast to pass through the Straits of Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico, posing no threat to the space center. KSC officials then decided to keep Discovery on the pad. Discovery is scheduled to lift off on the afternoon of October 29 on mission STS-95. The nine-day mission has garnered extraordinary publicity as it will mark the second flight into space for Senator John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. The 77-year-old Glenn will be the subject of a number of experiments sponsored by NASA and the National Institute on Aging to look for links between the aging process and the adaptation to weightlessness. Those experiments will include research into bone and muscle loss, balance disorders, and sleeping problems. The shuttle will also refly the Spartan-201 solar research satellite. The satellite, designed to fly free from the shuttle for several days while performing observations of the Sun, failed to deploy properly on its last flight in November 1997. The tumbling satellite had to be retrieved in a special spacewalk by two astronauts. Discovery will also carry a package of experiments to test equipment that will be used on the next Hubble Space Telescope (HST) servicing mission. The equipment tested includes a new cooler that may be attached to the HST's NICMOS infrared camera, extending its life, as well as various electronics equipment. The mission will be commanded by four-time shuttle astronaut Curtis Brown, with Steven Lindsey as pilot. Mission specialists include Scott Parazynski, Stephen Robinson, and Spain's Pedro Duque. Japan's Chiaki Mukai will join Glenn as payload specialists on the mission. The crew ranges in age from 77-year-old Glenn to Duque, who was born a little more than a year after Glenn's Mercury flight 36 years ago. Two New Extrasolar Planets Discovered A team of astronomers that includes the two most prolific planet discoverers announced Thursday, September 24, that they had discovered two more extrasolar planets, one that orbits extremely close to its parent star and another in a more Earth-like orbit. One planet, orbiting the Sun-like star HD 187123, orbits the star at a distance nine times closer than Mercury's distance from the Sun. The planet, with a minimum mass half that of Jupiter, takes only three days to complete one orbit of its star. The other planet, orbiting HD 210277, orbits at a more Earth-like distance, but has a far more elliptical orbit than the Earth. The planet, with a mass about 1.4 times that of Jupiter, takes 437 days to complete one orbit. The discovery of the second planet was significant, according to co-discoverer Geoff Marcy of San Francisco State University. "We had discovered planets that orbit much closer and much farther from their stars than the Earth-Sun distance," he said. "We wondered if nature rarely puts planets at one Earth-Sun distance. Now we know that such planets are not rare." The discoveries were made by an international team of scientists that includes Marcy and Paul Butler of the Anglo-Australian Observatory, who together have discovered nine of the 12 extrasolar planets found to date. The team's junior member was Kevin Apps, a sophomore at England's University of Sussex. An avid amateur astronomer, he poured over Marcy and Butler's initial list of stars to study and suggested replacing some of them with stars more like the Sun. One of Apps' replacement stars, accepted by Marcy and Butler, was HD 187123. "I don't think I can put into words how I feel about Geoff and Paul finding a planet around one of my suggested targets," Apps said. The team used a high-resolution spectrograph on one of the 10-meter (33-foot) telescopes at the Keck Observatory to measure the wobble of stars. The wobble is caused by the gravitational tug on the star from orbiting planets. The wobble is measured by noting minute shifts in wavelength in light from the star, caused by the Doppler effect. The team has studied 430 stars using the Keck Telescope over the last nine months. Continuing such observations, Marcy said, should allow them to discover up to two dozen more Jupiter-sized planets at the Earth's distance from the Sun in the next two to three years. Marcy's big interest, though, is looking for Jupiter-sized worlds farther away from stars, as is the case in our solar system. "What we're all about is discovering (planets) where evolution might have gotten a toehold," Marcy said. "Jupiter-sized planets at a greater distance from their star would suggest a solar system that could host a rocky Earth-like planet." "If it should turn out that out of more than 400 stars, none has a Jupiter orbiting at five Earth-Sun distances, that would be a frightening reality," Marcy added. "It might be the first sign that Earth is truly unusual and so life may be rare." Engineers Regain Control of SOHO NASA announced Thursday, September 17, that a team of engineers successfully regained control of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft nearly three months after ground errors sent the spacecraft spinning out of control. The attitude recovery maneuver was completed September 16 at 2:29pm EDT (1829 UT), NASA said. Engineers commanded SOHO to fire its thrusters to take it out of its spin and point its solar panels towards the Sun to generate power. Contact was lost with SOHO on June 24 when a series of errors by ground controllers sent the spacecraft spinning, breaking contact with the Earth. Contact with SOHO was restored in early August, and engineers have been working since then on procedures to return the spacecraft to normal condition. "It's a big step forward in our recovery plan for SOHO," said Francis Vandenbussche, who heads the SOHO recovery team for the European Space Agency (ESA). "We were never quite sure that we would manage to make the spacecraft point back towards the Sun." The next step, explained ESA SOHO project scientist Bernhard Fleck, is a slow, comprehensive check of all the spacecraft systems and the scientific instruments used to study the Sun. Some instruments were subjected to temperature ranges of -100 to +100 degrees Celsius (-148 to +212 degrees Fahrenheit). "We shall take our time and go step by step," Fleck said, "but I'm cautiously optimistic that SOHO can win back much of its scientific capacity for observing the Sun." SOHO, a joint ESA/NASA mission to study the Sun, was launched in December 1995. It completed its primary mission in April, after which ESA and NASA agreed on an extended mission through 2003 to study the Sun as it passed through the peak of its 11-year cycle of activity. The ability of SOHO to continue this mission will depend on the status of the instruments and other spacecraft systems. NASA and ESA are also continuing a review of all ground systems used to control the spacecraft, based on recommendations of a report released earlier in the month about the June 24 accident. That report pinned the blame on the accident on ground controllers, who relied on a gyroscope on SOHO that had been previously disconnected as well as another one which was in an improper mode. Gamma Ray Burst Had Effect on Atmosphere A powerful gamma ray burst detected in late August had an effect on the Earth's atmosphere, increasing the electrical activity in the ionosphere to daytime levels, scientists reported September 29. Researchers at Stanford University's Very Low Research Group found that when the gamma ray burst hit the Earth's atmosphere on the night of August 27, electrical activity increased from normally quiescent nighttime levels to the much higher levels seen during the day. The levels remained high for the five-minute duration of the burst. "It is amazing that such a burst could produce ionization levels similar to those produced by all the radiation coming from the Sun," said Umran Inan, professor of electrical engineering at Stanford. "It was as if night was briefly turned into day in the ionosphere." The ionization increase was caused by the powerful gamma and X-rays stripping electrons from atoms in the tenuous ionosphere. The burst has about the same intensity as a dental X-ray, scientists said, and posed no threat to life on Earth. The burst was traced back to SGR 1900+14, a distant object thought to be a magnetar, a neutron star with an intense magnetic field. The object is one of four known soft-gamma repeaters, objects which will occasionally release a burst of gamma rays. Inan said similar increased in ionospheric activity had been seen in the past, but the cause of them were unknown. Thus, "this may be the first time that a transient extra-solar phenomenon has measurably affected a part of the Earth's environment," he said. The sudden burst of energy from the magnetar, believed th be caused by a "starquake" on the surface of the star, was also detected in early September by radio astronomers. They detected radio waves emitted by particles accelerated away from the magnetar by its intense magnetic field. "All this goes to show that the Earth does not exist in splendid isolation," said Inan. "We now know that the Earth's physical environment is affected not only by our own sun but by energy originating from distant parts of our universe." Mir Cosmonauts Complete Brief Internal Spacewalk Two Mir cosmonauts spent less than an hour -- far less time than expected -- completing repairs inside the unpressurized Spektr module Tuesday evening, September 15. The spacewalk began at 4:00 pm EDT (2000 UT) as cosmonauts Gennady Padalka and Sergei Avdeyev entered the Spektr module to reconnect cables for the solar panels mounted outside the station. The spacewalk ended after just half an hour, although they had planned to spend three hours on the task. The reconnected cables should permit the panels to be turned remotely, allowing them to be oriented to capture the maximum possible amount of sunlight and convert it into electricity. "We now have to turn the whole station toward the sun in order to preserve power, while the normal mode of operation envisages turning the panels," Viktor Blagov, deputy chief of mission control, told the Itar-Tass news agency. A Russian Space Agency spokesman also hinted that Mir, scheduled to be deorbited in mid-1999, might stay up even longer. Vyacheslav Mikhailichenko told Reuters that further delays with the Russian-built Service Module for the International Space Station, caused by Russian economic woes, may prompt Russia to keep Mir in orbit until the Service Module can be launched. "As long as the International Space Station is not in orbit it doesn't make sense to bring Mir down," Mikhailichenko said. "What if the new station turns out not to work? Technology is technology after all." Astronomers See Dust Disks in Binary Star System Astronomers using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope have detected evidence of large dust disks -- from which planets are believed to form -- around both stars in a binary star system, evidence that many more stars could support planets than first thought. An international team led by Luis Rodriguez of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City detected the disks around both stars of a binary system 450 light years from Earth in the constellation Taurus. The two stars, separated from one another by only slightly more than the distance between the Sun and Pluto, each have disks that extend out to Saturn's distance from the Sun. The finding was a surprise, since astronomers had assumed the gravitational effects of the two stars would prevent protoplanetary disks from forming. "It was surprising to see these disks in a binary system with the stars so close together," Rodriguez said. While the astronomers did not detect any planets in the disks, there is enough material there to support their formation. "Each of these disks contains enough mass to form a solar system like our own," said team member David Willner of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "However," he noted, "we don't think these solar systems would be able to form outer, icy planets like Uranus and Neptune, because of the small size of the dust disks." Dust disks seen around other stars appear to extend to up to 100 AU (15 billion kilometers, 9.3 billion miles) from the star, about ten times farther than the disks seen around these stars. Had the two stars formed a few times closer, the astronomers noted, the gravitational forces would have been enough to prevent the disks from forming. "If these disks form planetary systems, they would be among the closest possible adjacent sets of planets in the universe," said Rodriguez. Alan Boss, a theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, notes that if a giant planet formed at the edge of these disks, the gravitational tug-of-war between the planet and the two stars could eject the planet from the system. This could explain TMR-1C, an object discovered in May by astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope. The object, located in the same dust cloud as this binary system, is thought to have been ejected from another binary system. Further studies are planned to determine if TMR-1C is a planet or a heavier brown dwarf star. Mars Global Surveyor Resumes Aerobraking After two false starts earlier in the month, the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft successfully resumed aerobraking with a thruster burn on Wednesday, September 23. The 14.8-second firing of the main thruster on MGS altered its orbit so that the spacecraft passes through the upper fringes of the Martian atmosphere, slowing down the spacecraft and circularizing its orbit with each pass. The aerobraking was originally scheduled to begin on September 14, but a problem with the backup receiver on the spacecraft's antenna delayed the aerobraking for three days. A computer glitch then delayed the aerobraking just hours before it was to begin September 17. A faulty command placed the solar panels of MGS in the wrong orientation, reducing the amount of electricity they could generate. the spacecraft drained much of the charge in its batteries until the problem was corrected. With the batteries recharged and other problems resolved, controllers were able to restart the aerobraking as planned. Aerobraking will continue for four and a half months, as drag from repeated passes through the upper atmosphere moves the spacecraft's orbit into the desired circular mapping orbit. The aerobraking operation was originally planned to take place between September of 1997 and last January, but was delayed when a solar panel began bending beyond its design limits. Fearing continued aerobraking could snap the panel off, the aerobraking was halted last October until a plan to split the aerobraking into two longer, less intense sections, was adopted. MGS will enter its final mapping orbit in March of 1999, one year later than planned. Senate Hearing Explores Government Launch Incentives Both the administrator of NASA and leading members of the launch industry encouraged the development of government incentives, ranging from tax credits to guaranteed loans, to promote the development of new, low cost, reusable launch vehicles. Speaking at a hearing of the U.S. Senate's Science, Technology, and Space subcommittee Wednesday, September 23, NASA administrator Dan Goldin said current high launch costs is inhibiting not only the commercial development of space, but future uses by NASA. "The potential for the future seems almost limitless," Goldin said, but noting that NASA spends more than $4 billion a year on launch costs, "without affordable and reliable access to space, this potential will remain unrealized." Goldin said a NASA analysis of the launch industry indicated that if private industry developed a large reusable launch vehicle on its own, it could lower the price per pound to orbit to around $2,500. Government incentives, though, could lower that per pound cost to as little as $1,000. "The contrast is stark, and could make all the difference in opening up space." Goldin outlined four kinds of government incentives that could help private industry develop new low-cost launch vehicles. Through research and development support, guaranteed government loans, advance purchase agreements of launch vehicles, and tax credits and holidays, new affordable launch vehicles can be developed. Goldin had a sympathetic ear from Senator John Breaux (D-LA), who earlier this year introduced S.2121, the Space Launch Cost Reduction Act. Breaux's bill includes many of the incentives outlined by Goldin, including government loan guarantees administered by NASA. "I am a big believer in the private sector," Breaux said. "But while we are competing with other countries that are not market-based economies, it is important that we be able to compete." The idea of government loan guarantees was criticized earlier this year by two space activist organizations, the National Space Society and the Space Frontier Foundation, who feared such a program would allow NASA to pick "winners" among established aerospace companies while stifling innovative new projects. "Federal loan guarantees sound nice, but they are a bad idea that will wreck the embryonic reusable space transportation industry by warping the market and stifling innovation," SFF president Rick Tumlinson said in June. Some members of the launch industry are in favor of loan guarantees. Jerry Rising of Lockheed Martin's X-33 project told the committee that the most effective means "of facilitating private investor confidence would be through a government loan program." SpaceViews Event Horizon October 1: 40th Anniversary of the creation of NASA October 2: OSC Taurus launch of the STEX satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California October 7: Ariane 4 launch of the Eutelsat-W2 and Sirius-3 satellites from Kourou, French Guiana October 8: Atlas 2AS launch of the Hot Bird 5 satellite from Cape Canaveral, Florida. October 9-11: Space Frontier Foundation Conference, Los Angeles, California (http://www.space-frontier.org/EVENTS/SFC7/) October 11-16: American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences annual meeting, Madison, Wisconsin October 19: Atlas 2A launch of the UHF-F9 satellite from Cape Canaveral, Florida October 22: Pegasus XL launch of the SCD-2/Wing GLove payloads from off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida October 25: Delta 2 launch of Deep Space-1 and SEDSAT-1 from Cape Canaveral, Florida October 29: Launch of shuttle on mission STS-95 (John Glenn flight) Other News Ariane, ORBCOMM Launches: Ariane 4 and Pegasus XL rockets successfully placed satellites into orbit in September. An Ariane 4 booster launched a PanAmSat communications satellite into orbit early Wednesday, September 16, from Kourou, French Guiana. The PAS-7 satellite will go into geosynchronous orbit over the Indian Ocean. It is designed to provide video and telecommunications services throughout the region in conjunction with PAS-4, an existing PanAmSat satellite. An Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) Pegasus booster launched eight ORBCOMM satellites into orbit early Wednesday, September 23, completing a constellation of 28 satellites that will provide worldwide messaging services. The system is expected to go into full commercial service in a few months, after the new satellites are checked out. Space For Sale: NASA is considering selling to companies the rights to display their logo during NASA media events, an industry newsletter reported Tuesday, September 21. According to "Science & Government Report", a newsletter published by John Wiley and Sons' Technical Insights subsidiary, a Congressionally-mandated report to be delivered to the space agency soon will recommend a wide range of advertising ventures that could raise funding for NASA. The first step would be to sell the rights to display corporate logos during NASA media events, and would grow to include advertising during the construction of the space station and the possibility of allowing the entertainment industry to use the space shuttle and station. More Human Studies Needed: Additional studies, both on the ground and in orbit, of the effects of weightlessness on the human body are needed as missions become longer, a panel of medical experts recently concluded. In a report released September 22, the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, part of the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, issued a report calling for additional studies to see how long-duration space flight might adversely affect both the human body and the mind. Of greatest importance, the committee concluded, were studies of how weightlessness affects bone and muscle mass, blood pressure, orientation, and movement. Dust Rings Around Jupiter: Data from the Galileo spacecraft show that Jupiter's system of thin, intricate rings is formed from dust from the planet's innermost small moons, scientists announced Tuesday, September 15. Using images from Galileo, scientists from Cornell University and the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) saw that one of Jupiter's three rings, a dim "gossamer" ring, has one ring embedded inside another, with both composed of dust from the small inner moons of Amalthea and Thebe. The dust likely comes from collisions of asteroid or comet fragments with the moons. Globalstar Restructures: Globalstar announced Tuesday, September 22, plans to recover from a failed Zenit launch earlier in the month by purchasing additional Delta and Soyuz launches to put its communications satellite constellation in orbit next year. The company announced a plan to move up three Soyuz launches, originally planned for early 1999, to November and December of 1998 and January of 1999. The company will then select from among five additional Soyuz launches, six Delta 2 launches of four satellites each, and two Zenit launches of 12 satellites each with the goal of placing an additional 12 satellites in orbit by May 1999 and 16 more by the end of the year. In Brief: Scientists from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, using data from Mars Pathfinder, believe that the bulk composition of the planet Mars does not match that of carbonaceous chrondites, a common class of meteorite thought to be left over from the formation of the solar system, placing into doubt a commonly-held theory of planetary formation... The first of four 8.2-meter mirrors of the Very Large Telescope in Chile is returning scientific data, European astronomers reported. The telescope collected 100 hours of data in late August and September... A Congressional conference committee agreed September 17 to reclassify communications satellites as munitions, making them harder to export to China for launch on Long March boosters. The Clinton Administration said in the past it would veto any bill that made such a reclassification... NASA turns 40 years old on October 1. Happy Birthday! But, is it time for a mid-life crisis?... *** Articles *** The Beginnings of America's Man in Space Program by Andrew J. LePage Introduction On October 1, 1958 - days short of the first Sputnik anniversary - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) officially came into being. After months of study and debate in the wake of the launching of the first Soviet satellites, the United States government reached a consensus on how the country should proceed into the Space Age when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 on July 29. NASA was formed around the existing NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which had been under the direction of Hugh L. Dryden. Appointed as NASA's first administrator was T. Keith Glennan while Dryden became his deputy. While the military would continue to run space projects related to the needs of national security, all purely scientific space programs under military control would eventually be transferred to NASA. This included, much to the chagrin of officials in the Department of Defense, the United States' nascent man-in-space effort. Early Studies The genesis of what would become America's first manned space programs can be traced back to July 14, 1952 when the NACA executive committee passed a resolution to "devote modest effort to problems of unmanned and manned flights at altitudes from 50 miles to infinity and at speeds from Mach 10 to escape from earth's gravity." The direct result of this resolution was the X-15 program conducted jointly by NACA, the USAF, and the U.S. Navy starting in December of 1954. This advanced rocket-powered aircraft would fly to the edge of space at 80 kilometers (50 miles) and as fast as Mach 7. It would bridge the performance gap between existing X-planes and what was needed to meet NACA's ultimate goal. The next step lead to joint NACA and USAF studies of still higher flying manned aircraft or the "Manned Glide Rocket Research System". Conducted under the aegis of the USAF's ARDC (Air Research and Development Command) starting in March 1956, this set of studies eventually lead to the "Dyna-Soar" or X-20 program. At the same time ARDC also established a parallel research project for a manned ballistic capsule known as "The Manned Ballistic Rocket Research System". Since the development of a simple ballistic capsule would require much less time than an aerospace glider, such a program could give the USAF much needed experience in this new environment in the shortest time possible. As had been done in many earlier USAF research programs, NACA was invited to participate. Although there was a vocal minority in the NACA hierarchy who were against involvement in a purely ballistic approach to manned spaceflight, by early 1956 there had already been much research conducted at NACA laboratories on the subject. As a result of hypervelocity experiments performed during June 1952, a team of scientists and engineers under H. Julian Allen at the High-Speed Research Division of NACA's Ames Aeronautical Laboratory (now NASA Ames Research Center) discovered that a blunt body minimized heating during a hypersonic reentry into the atmosphere. The previous conventional wisdom held that a slender shape would be preferred but studies had shown that they produced more heat than any known materials could withstand. Allen and his team had now solved this thermal barrier problem with their counterintuitive blunt shape in which 90% of the heat is absorbed by the shock wave generated during reentry. On April 28, 1953 Allen and Alfred J. Eggers Jr. of Ames co-authored a secret NACA report detailing their findings. This report, which was distributed to missile contractors and the military that spring, heavily influenced the designs of the first generation of ICBM warheads and subsequent manned spacecraft. Choosing the Best Approach In early 1954 Allen, Eggers and Stanford E. Neice of Ames wrote a now classic paper on atmospheric reentry entitled "A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Long-Range Hypervelocity Vehicles". In this paper they compared the advantages and disadvantages of three different reentry body configurations: A blunt no-lift body, a high-drag lifting body, and a low-drag gliding body. These three concepts would be the focus of manned spaceflight research in the following years. Eggers went on to present a modified version of this paper at the annual meeting of the American Rocket Society in San Francisco in June of 1957. At the time he was convinced that a glider would be a better approach to manned spaceflight than a simple ballistic capsule. While the total heat load would be greater, a glider's heating rate would be much lower as would be the G-forces during reentry. A glider would also be maneuverable and allow the pilot to make a precision landing. Unfortunately it was soon realized that such a spacecraft would be too heavy for any military rockets then envisioned to lift into orbit. Eggers then began to push for a lighter and simpler lifting-body design (originally proposed in an Ames report on hypersonic flight released in January of 1957) as a compromise between the ballistic capsule and the glider. His design, called M-1, was a triangular shaped craft about 3 meters (10 feet) wide and 2 meters (7 feet) long with a rounded underside and a flat top. Looking like a quarter of an egg, this design would minimize heating and G-forces during reentry and allow 320 kilometers (200 miles) of cross-range and 1300 kilometers (800 miles) of down-range maneuverability in a package that military rockets could handle. The third concept using a simple ballistic capsule was championed by a team at NACA's Langley Aeronautical Laboratory (now NASA Langley Research Center) who wrote a minority view in the appendix of the January 1957 Ames report. During the mid-1950s Maxime A. Faget, Robert O. Piland, and a team of engineers at Langley's Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD) had conducted a series of flight tests with models of blunt bodies under the supervision of Langley's Associate Director, Robert R. Gilruth, in an effort to extend Allen's original work. They felt that a blunt, nonlifting shape like a sphere would offer the best chances of getting a man into orbit in the shortest time. While the M-1 design held much promise and stimulated further research into lifting bodies (which continues to this day), NACA management began to favor Langley's ballistic approach due to its simplicity. In parallel with the USAF efforts in the manned ballistic rocket project (which eventually became known as MIS or "Man-In-Space") and those of a group of 11 contractors who answered the ARDC call for proposals, Langley engineers continued to slowly develop the design and specifications for a manned ballistic space capsule during the months leading to the Space Age. The Dawn of the Space Age After the launch of Sputnik, the entire country was struck by a sense of panic. And with the launching of Sputnik 2 in November 1958 with its canine passenger, it was clear that the Soviet Union were taking the first steps needed to send a man into space. During this time, NACA leaders sought to determine what role their organization would play in an American manned spaceflight effort. But in addition to the NACA plans and the USAF MIS study (which quickly became MISS or "Man In Space - Soonest"), the U.S. Army and Navy also started pushing their own proposals for a manned space mission. The Army proposal originated from the Wernher von Braun's team at the ABMA (Army Ballistic Missile Agency). Initially called "Man Very High" and later known as Project Adam, their proposal called for using a modified Redstone rocket to launch a manned capsule on a short suborbital flight. The ABMA proposal was essentially an updated version of the British Interplanetary Society's V-2-based Megaroc concept. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics proposal, called Mer I for "Manned Earth Reconnaissance I", envisioned a cylindrical spacecraft with deployable wings launched on a two-stage rocket. As with other aspects of the nation's space program, ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) was put in charge of coordinating all these efforts in the spring of 1958. From the start ARPA clearly preferred the MISS proposal but whoever finally got the project, NACA was guaranteed a leading role due to their experience in the field. Still, as the spring of 1958 approached, it was becoming increasing clear that the nation's space program would be run not by ARPA but by a civilian agency and NACA had already quietly accepted the task. Because of this and growing differences in opinion between NACA and USAF over the best way to proceed with MISS, NACA began to quietly break out and push its own ideas among the various military and civilian study groups and panels that were set up to consider the issue. In order to bring their own ideas into the forefront, NACA sponsored the Conference on High Speed Aerodynamics from March 18 to 20, 1958 where NACA engineers presented their proposals for a manned space mission to a group of military, industrial, and contractor personnel. During this symposium, the NACA management's eventual plan was outlined in a Langley paper by Faget, Benjamin Garland, and James J. Buglia. They proposed a 3.35 meter (11 foot) long, roughly conical shaped ballistic capsule with a 2.13 meter (7 foot) in diameter heat sink mounted on its blunt end. The pilot would be strapped into a form fitting couch to better withstand the G-forces associated with launch and reentry. Because the effects of spaceflight on the pilot were totally unknown, the simple capsule would be designed to operate automatically. Unlike the USAF which wanted to develop a new Thor-based launch vehicle for MISS, NACA wanted to use the Atlas ICBM (which had just begun test flights) to orbit their capsule. Once in orbit, the capsule would be turned so that it traveled blunt-side first using small gas jets to control attitude. A solid retrorocket package would then be used to slow the capsule enough to perform a high drag, no-lift reentry into Earth's atmosphere at the end of the mission. By June 1958 Langley's Faget and Charles W. Mathews had already completed the first draft of the manned satellite's preliminary specifications based on this concept that NACA officials clearly preferred. Project Mercury is Born As ARPA and the USAF continued to jockey for position throughout mid-1958 in a bid to monopolize the manned space program, NACA engineers continued to refine their space capsule design and specifications. But the unofficial competition for the manned space program ended on August 18 when President Eisenhower finally decided that the soon to be created NASA would be in charge. Money ARPA had allocated for MISS would be transferred to NASA along with the funding for other scientific space projects that had been given to NASA. To ease the program's transition, a Joint NASA-ARPA Manned Satellite Panel headed by Gilruth was established on September 17, 1958 to make final recommendations to NASA for the manned program. Their proposals were submitted to Glennan and ARPA director Roy Johnson between October 3 and 7. On October 7 NASA formally organized its manned space program and gave it the task of placing a capsule in orbit, investigating the pilot's reaction to the orbital environment, and safely recovering the pilot and capsule. By the end of October, NASA representatives had already started negotiations to procure the rockets they needed for their project. By November 5, 1958 NASA's new Director of the Office of Space Flight Programs, Abe Silverstein, had organized the STG (Space Task Group) at Langley to run the manned space program. Gilruth was appointed as Director of the program with his former Technical Assistant, Charles J. Donlan, assigned as his deputy. Faget became the Flight System Chief in charge of the spacecraft's design while another former-PARD member, Piland, became Assistant Chief for Advanced Projects. With NASA's manned space program management team and an initial staff of 33 people in place, the program's pace began to accelerate. On November 7, 1958 40 perspective bidders met at Langley for a briefing from STG engineers on their vision of the manned space capsule. About half expressed continued interest in the project and on November 14 they received a copy of the 50-page document entitled "Specifications for Manned Space Capsule". On December 11 STG received bids from 11 contractors for the manned space capsule. After STG established component assessment teams to review the bids, the long task of choosing a contractor for America's first manned space capsule began. But as the pace of the manned program began to pick up, there was a need to give the new project a name. While several were proposed, on November 26 Glennan and Dryden choose Silverstein's suggestion which he had based on Greek mythology. On December 17, 1958 NASA officially announced it - Project Mercury. Bibliography David Baker, The History of Manned Spaceflight, Crown Publishers, 1981 William M. Bland Jr., "Project Mercury", in The History of Rocket Technology, Eugene M. Emme (editor), Wayne State University Press, pp. 212-240, 1963 Eugene M. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1915-1960, NASA, 1961 Loyd S. Swenson Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury, NASA, SP-4201, 1966 [continued in part 2] ---------- - - To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address: - To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com - Subject: anything - unsubscribe SpaceViews - - E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net - - SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS), - copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society - www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com) From VM Tue Oct 6 17:46:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5872" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:38:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "162" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5872 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11298 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11283 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AXPa22057 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <9ef902ce.361ab812@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:42 EDT In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >Hi Group > >Steve VanDevender wrote: > >> KellySt@aol.com writes: >> > This runs into the two big questions: >> > - Who'ld pay for all this? >> > - Why? >> > >> > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino. >> > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top. >> >> With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I >> can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar >> exploration. >> >> When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of >> technology and access to resources that implies, answering the >> question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" >> will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital >> colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build >> interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the >> expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be >> far less. >> >> In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far >> different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic >> sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of >> that. > >Thanks for the eloquent reply. The most believable scenario achieveable by 2050 >that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and >particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt- based >infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then pulse >propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with neutron >damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium >reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power scenarios, Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse fusino system. >but >they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a bit >hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or fusion >systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050? You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't afford them. But then perhaps perfcting such systems could drive a government to fund such a program as a show peice. > >I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is filled >with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is underway. >That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off- Earth >than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common- place. >Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber- augmentation, >plus >various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be able >to >go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void. These are a lot od assumption. The one thing we did all agree was that we couldn'r seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would credably be. > >I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are fusion >drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion pulse, >we >haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high- Tc >superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what is >possible? We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the next 50 years into functioning drives. Life support and food storage that would last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all we need to build a 40ish% od c system. Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed power and fusino system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However unless some manufacturing advace brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for it. >If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha >Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What would >it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand HLLV >flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs, and >the >risks of terrorism and so forth. Actually it would be harder to do multri century flight, and really stupid to do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make increadable strides, so unless you can get there in a couple decades, you should just wait for a faster ship. > >So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly >possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class liberals >that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some >god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety of >reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are more >likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a life, >it'll be a life. Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing Manhatten. Since the resources of this star system could support any conceavable planetary civilization for tens of thopusands of years. There'ld be no need to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch a interstellar colony? > >So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small scale >Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not >several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's really >silly. Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it, but someday we'll be able too. > >Adam Kelly From VM Tue Oct 6 17:46:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1808" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:38:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1808 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11698 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11690 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IBPa17800 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:38 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:38 EDT In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > This runs into the two big questions: > > - Who'ld pay for all this? > > - Why? > > > > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino. > > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top. > >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar >exploration. > >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be >far less. > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of >that. Two problems with that. 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within the next century or two. 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid. In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home. Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss. Kelly From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2450" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "18:28:39" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "52" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2450 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00167 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00156 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08396 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA04757; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:28:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13850.50119.450681.822957@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote: > > >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I > >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar > >exploration. > > > >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of > >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the > >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" > >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital > >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build > >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the > >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be > >far less. > > > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far > >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic > >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of > >that. > > Two problems with that. > > 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar > missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within > the next century or two. > > 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid. I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050 we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to stage an interstellar exploration mission. Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and technology, is beginning to look a bit slim. > In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down > the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich > enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a > flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home. > > Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss. That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had that concept), such as the people who colonized the South Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago. You seem to be considering only recent European examples of colonization. From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3041" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:54:43" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "64" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3041 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14785 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA14774 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante05.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante05.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.7]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id UAA28636 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:44 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id UAA31840 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <13850.50119.450681.822957@localhost.efn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Acttually, a few european colonies have been started for religious reasons, such as the Puritans, quakers, and later the mormons in Utah. I don't know how plausible interstellar pilgrimage is, but I can see the appeal for some group to leave "babylon" behind and set out for the promised land. A large group with a strong vision and strong finances could do this even prior to more "public" colony projects. Best Regards Nels Lindberg On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: > KellySt@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote: > > > > >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I > > >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar > > >exploration. > > > > > >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of > > >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the > > >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can" > > >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital > > >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build > > >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the > > >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be > > >far less. > > > > > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far > > >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic > > >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of > > >that. > > > > Two problems with that. > > > > 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar > > missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within > > the next century or two. > > > > 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid. > > I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050 > we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to > stage an interstellar exploration mission. > > Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology > still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned > starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and > technology, is beginning to look a bit slim. > > > In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down > > the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich > > enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a > > flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home. > > > > Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss. > > That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are > plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to > bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had > that concept), such as the people who colonized the South > Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago. > You seem to be considering only recent European examples of > colonization. > From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6795" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:22:56" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "193" "Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6795 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08564 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA08545 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:24:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne8p46.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.47]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA19703 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:24:51 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9ef902ce.361ab812@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AJ Crowl From: AJ Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 22:22:56 +1000 Hi Group, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > > > > > >The most believable scenario achieveable by > 2050 > >that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and > >particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt- > based > >infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then > pulse > >propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with > neutron > >damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium > >reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power > scenarios, > > Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse fusino > system. Such as? What fuels can we use? Lithium? Does anyone know how to start a lithium reaction? > > > >but > >they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a > bit > >hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or > fusion > >systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050? > > You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have > masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't > afford them. But then perhaps perfecting such systems could drive a government > to fund such a program as a show piece. Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von neumann replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge solettas won't be unreasonable. I suspect any really high energy system will be some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher efficiency, at least in principle. > > > > > >I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is > filled > >with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is > underway. > >That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off- > Earth > >than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common- > place. > >Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber- > augmentation, > >plus > >various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be > able > >to > >go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void. > > These are a lot of assumptions. True. > The one thing we did all agree was that we > couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would > credibly be. I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of space-interest groups.] > > > > > >I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are > fusion > >drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion > pulse, > >we > >haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high- > Tc > >superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what > is > >possible? > > We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the next > 50 years into functioning drives. We do? Have you seen DoD research that the rest of us haven't? > Life support and food storage that would > last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all we > need to build a 40ish% of c system. 0.4c! Are you kidding? What sort of mass-ratio do you need for that using fusion? 1000/1? > Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed > power and fusinon system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However unless > some manufacturing advance brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for it. Perhaps we should invoke ultra-cheap nano-systems so starflight is possible by 2050. > > > >If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha > >Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What > would > >it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand > HLLV > >flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs, > and > >the > >risks of terrorism and so forth. > > Actually it would be harder to do multi century flight, and really stupid to > do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make > incredible strides, so unless you can get there in a couple of decades, you > should just wait for a faster ship. Which is why I posited Orion. It is unreasonable for manned starflight, but my point was it's what we can do NOW. > > > > > >So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly > >possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class > liberals > >that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some > >god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety > of > >reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are > more > >likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a > life, > >it'll be a life. > > Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay > their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing > Manhatten. It won't be if they're independent. > > > Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable > planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years. Millions if it's static. > There'd be no need > to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch a > interstellar colony? Why? Why not? > > > > > >So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small > scale > >Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not > >several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's > really > >silly. > > Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it, but > someday we'll be able too. Assumes more than we can know. I believe we'll be able to, but that's no guarantee it'll ever happen. The really silly aspect is the accelerations required. At a gee it takes years to get around, even when we're counting tau time and not flat time. Anything quicker requires higher accelerations. Unless you cancel inertia or want to float in a tank like a newt, then it's impossible to fit a starflight into just a couple of years. Small groups wouldn't survive over the years realistically needed to get between stars, so I think the minimum would be ~ 500. A Greek city state size of 10,000 - 30,000 would be better, and more likely to spend a few years processing Jovian gases or comet ices to get the fuel. But I'm just guessing. Anyone got a way of boosting a ship to 0.999995 c in a hurry? Adam From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2090" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "16:06:46" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2090 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25180 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (O1Hu6grRJAE682mOp4SwYJU5l16tfv63@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA25170 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id QAA24035 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:06:47 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:06:46 +0200 (MET DST) On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, AJ Crowl wrote: > > Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von neumann > replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge > solettas won't be unreasonable. I suspect any really high energy system will be > some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher efficiency, > at least in principle. > Well, i would personnaly VERY MUCH recomend against the use of von Neuman machines, at least in the forseeable future. Given that you'd esentially be creating an artificial species, machine or organic makes no fundamental difference. And given that any spiecies will try to survive and prosper, there is no guarantee that WE will be in control. > > > The one thing we did all agree was that we > > couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would > > credibly be. > > I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with > independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of > space-interest groups.] > What do you mean by independant CylCits. Have you got a description somewhere? (Website or so...) > > > > Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay > > their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing > > Manhatten. > > It won't be if they're independent. > Well, independance is only posible for those that are strong. (Or have strong allies.) I certanly don't see city-sized independant groups as a stable posibilty. The Stronger comunities/states will simply consume the weaker ones IMO. The Strong consuming the weak is one of the few constants in human culture, always has been, always will be. > > > > > > Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable > > planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years. > > Millions if it's static. > yeah and probably only a few centuries if can manage to grow exponentially. (Say a doubling of the resourses exploited each decade would be nice.) Bjorn. From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2732" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "10:36:29" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "52" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to p ush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2732 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA07012 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA07006 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:36:30 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to p ush against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:36:29 -0400 > ---------- > From: Steve VanDevender[SMTP:stevev@efn.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and > something to push against. > > I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050 > we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to > stage an interstellar exploration mission. > > Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology > still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned > starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and > technology, is beginning to look a bit slim. > Well, I think we can all agree that it is economically unlikely for an interstellar mission to be launched within the next fifty years. I suppose one might ask the question whether or not that matters? I think the original idea was to discuss the mission from a more technical standpoint, although I certainly wouldn't want to exclude other discussions. Would it be worthwhile to instead discuss the question: "How would we get to a nearby star given that there is a directive to go (the reason being irrelevant) and that there are unlimited funds (well, limited by the planet's resources), launching in 2050?" Or would everyone feel uncomfortable with a discussion on that level? Now, by "unlimited funds" I don't mean building a starship the size of our moon - there's still a question of what we can physically accomplish by the time the launch deadline comes around. If we took the next fifty years to build something (coming up with something enormous) we'd be limited by a design of today (i.e. fission, sail, etc). If we want to use a design from 2040 (i.e. fusion, maybe antimatter), we'd have to be able to build it in ten years. Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that next). Will it be possible or not? My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does everyone else think? ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Wed Oct 7 10:19:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["143" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "12:09:43" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 143 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16738 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA16724 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p202.gnt.com [204.49.89.202]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA06170; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:10:59 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "David Levine" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:09:43 -0500 Will it be possible or not? > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > everyone else think? I vote YES. Lee From VM Wed Oct 7 10:19:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["890" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "12:09:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 890 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16814 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA16799 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p202.gnt.com [204.49.89.202]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA06164; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:10:56 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bdf215$44951d60$d65931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "AJ Crowl" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:09:37 -0500 Adam, Kelly is correct, there are pulse fusion systems around that don't produce lots of neutrons, you even named one - Orion. Current concepts for pulsed fusion are somewhat more refined than Orion, which no one is seriously considering anymore. Try http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/Index.html for an in-depth look at one of the newest concepts which is currently being tested by PSU, JPL and the USAF. The current incarnation is neutron intensive but the technology scales to Lithium or Boron fairly well. I wouldn't think it would be unreasonable to see second or even third generation engines in use by 2050, which would allow access to most of the Solar system within only a few months time, and given sufficient fuel, could propel a probe to the stars at up to .99 c. Your guess at the fuel ratio was, however, a little optimistic. It is more like 10,000 or even 100,000 to 1. Lee From VM Wed Oct 7 10:45:43 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2373" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:35:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "57" "starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2373 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04840 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA04818 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA08780; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:35:30 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810071735.SAA08780@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:35:30 +0100 (MET) > From: David Levine > [...] > > Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch > an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define > "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already > on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). > I don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > next). Will it be possible or not? > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > everyone else think? > Good question. There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid. Mine is "possibly, provided...". More precisely, I see two basic problems here: 1. Propulsion 2. Infrastructure Ad. 1: Propulsion ----------------- I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible from our perspective, namely: - fusion rocket; - giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); - antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, a prototype build and tested in space. As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur in the foreseable future. Ad. 2: Infrastructure --------------------- I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines and space factories. It must of course start from building permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow - it is even more annoyning than the slow progres in point (1) above, as the progress in this area already needs no essential breaktroughs in science or technology, only the will and money. Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, the probability of launching a starship within fifty years is very, very low. -- Zenon Kulpa * * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * * http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan] From VM Wed Oct 7 11:37:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["647" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "11:31:51" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 647 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04615 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04600 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06690 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA08587; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13851.45975.952815.959506@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker> References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com> <000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > Will it be possible or not? > > > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > > everyone else think? > > I vote YES. > > Lee I wasn't really intending to call into question the currently stated goal of the design project to build a manned interstellar mission by 2050. All I really meant to say was that at this time it seems sort of unlikely that our future will turn out like that, but mainly for social rather than technical reasons. I do think that if it really became a worldwide social priority in the near future to take that first step to the stars in 2050, it could happen. From VM Wed Oct 7 14:11:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["126" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "15:08:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "4" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 126 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04379 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:09:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA04355 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p214.gnt.com [204.49.89.214]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA27292; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:09:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bdf22e$2fe81c00$d65931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <000501bdf215$44951d60$d65931cc@lparker> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:08:00 -0500 Correction, AIMSTAR is a second generation drive that is aneutronic - but the first generation drive is still in R&D ... Lee From VM Wed Oct 7 16:52:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2604" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:43:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "72" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2604 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24997 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:45:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA24982 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA18933; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:45:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bdf24c$48240b80$0b5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810071735.SAA08780@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:43:26 -0500 Zenon, > Good question. > There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid. > Mine is "possibly, provided...". > More precisely, I see two basic problems here: > 1. Propulsion > 2. Infrastructure > > Ad. 1: Propulsion > ----------------- > I think it will not be possible, unless some real breakthrough > occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible > from our perspective, namely: > - fusion rocket; First generation under test at JPL > - giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); > - antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). First generation under test at JPL > I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, > a prototype build and tested in space. VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket, it is close in terms of performance... > As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur > in the foreseeable future. > > Ad. 2: Infrastructure > --------------------- > I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without > extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines > and space factories. True, but... > It must of course start from building > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own reasons . > Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow - > it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above, > as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs > in science or technology, only the will and money. Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge. Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as we go along, probably a LOT better. > > Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, > change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, > the probability of launching a starship within fifty years > is very, very low. Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive! Your club is a good start, there are also other avenues that help. ANYTHING that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along. Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path. From VM Wed Oct 7 17:07:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["429" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:57:03" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 429 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01790 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA01781 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA20312; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdf24e$2e7f2fa0$0b5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <23944-361BD29E-1141@mailtod-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "mangas" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:57:03 -0500 Mangas, Try this for a good starting point: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm It is the latest revised version of Marc Millis' famous "Warp Drive When?" presentation. It has been thoroughly rewritten with lots of new links to the latest research. Lee > Hey Lee, > I'm new on this list and was wondering the URL of your web site, and any > other of interest dealing with this subject? > Thanks, Mangas > From VM Wed Oct 7 17:07:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["170" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:56:58" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 170 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01841 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:59:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA01828 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA20296; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:58:43 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bdf24e$2c2476c0$0b5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <13851.45975.952815.959506@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:56:58 -0500 Steve, I understood, I still vote yes. Despite some of the gloomy assessments we have discussed here, I am still optimistic that it can and will be done by 2050. Lee From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2750" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:12:06" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2750 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26508 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:12:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA26459 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MAZa02317 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:06 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:06 EDT In a message dated 10/6/98 7:24:42 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >[...]> >> I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time >> studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and >> individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected >> advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in >> 2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc. >> >> The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its >> infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production >> infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable, >> dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a >> little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American >> frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so. >> >> The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space >> exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the >> development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to >> a point where we can send out an interstellar probe. >> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System. >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here. >The Mars Society awaits us... These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late seabottom bases to ocean colonization. >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for >> one thing - a new chance on a new world. >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way... Not likely. ;) You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team and abondon them there to die. Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on Earthly colonization projects. > >Regards, > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2695" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:12:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "94" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2695 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26724 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26701 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XHAa02301 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:01 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <26295850.361c1f71@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:01 EDT In a message dated 10/5/98 7:44:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Jeez Adam, > > > >Excuse me while I re-plate the contacts on my modem card...it got kind of > >hot . > > > >Several months ago I began a project which I posted a preview link to on my > >website, outlining a timeline for the next 50 to 100 years. I got some > >really good suggestions and some replies that it looked more like fiction > >than a serious discussion relevant to this list. > > > >It had a purpose however, and your diatribe hits precisely home. My point > >then was (and still is) that we are attempting to define technologies and > >design a ship without considering the infrastructure required to make ANY of > >this possible. As you and Steve both intimate, there is more to building a > >starship than throwing a bunch of hardware together and aiming it at the > >nearest star. > > > >I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time > >studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and > >individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected > >advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in > >2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc. > > > >The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its > >infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production > >infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable, > >dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a > >little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American > >frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so. > > > >The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space > >exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the > >development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to > >a point where we can send out an interstellar probe. > > > >In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. > >Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even > >thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for > >one thing - a new chance on a new world. > > > >Lee I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start by launching fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a compeling reason to launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off. The one place we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system. What angle are you figuring on here? Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["554" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "21:40:31" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 554 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06810 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:43:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA06804 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OEMComputer (pm6-80.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.80]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA06654 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361C423F.4F5F@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26295850.361c1f71@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 21:40:31 -0700 > The one place > we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space > platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system. ??? Can't settle the planets? I assume you are referring to biotoxins and such. I disagree, I think it is quite likely that by the time we begin serious exploration/colonization of other solar systems, we will have bio-medical systems capable of stopping any problems like bacterial contamination. If so, and the planet has a decent atmosphere/temperature/etc., I say colonize it. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["833" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:35" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 833 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19510 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19499 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KEGa03785 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:35 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5d34cf52.361c31db@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:35 EDT In a message dated 10/6/98 11:00:09 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: >Acttually, a few european colonies have been started for religious >reasons, such as the Puritans, quakers, and later the mormons in Utah. I >don't know how plausible interstellar pilgrimage is, but I can see the >appeal for some group to leave "babylon" behind and set out for the >promised land. A large group with a strong vision and strong finances >could do this even prior to more "public" colony projects. >Best Regards >Nels Lindberg Those colonies had a very low survival and success rate (hundreds founded, dozens survived) and to have pockets deep enough to fund a project like this, you have to be a powerfull insider. Also those colonies generally used ships developed by others previously. So who launches the predisesor flights? Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["595" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:46" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 595 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19681 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19663 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BAFa17800 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:46 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <794e76d2.361c31e6@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:46 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 7:03:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Mangas, > > > >Try this for a good starting point: > > > >http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm > > > >It is the latest revised version of Marc Millis' famous "Warp Drive When?" > >presentation. It has been thoroughly rewritten with lots of new links to the > >latest research. > > > >Lee This litle site is full of theoretical ideas that wold revolutionize space travel. If any of these ideas get out of the lab (and at least one is likely to by 2050) the whole conversation gets completly turned upside down. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["732" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 732 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19698 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19679 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BLGa17823 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:53 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <376088d2.361c31ed@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:53 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 9:10:33 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >> > Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable >> > planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years. >> >> Millions if it's static. >> > > >yeah and probably only a few centuries if can manage to grow >exponentially. (Say a doubling of the resourses exploited each decade >would be nice.) > > > >Bjorn. The tens of thousands number assumed the population continues to grow at its current rate forever, all of them use raw materials at the rate of the most consuptive American, and none of them recycle anything. Of course more wealth and tech could dramatically up our usage, but a little recycling seems likely. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["991" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 991 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19700 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19682 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GOUa02329 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:55 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:55 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 6:49:41 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, > >> change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, > >> the probability of launching a starship within fifty years > >> is very, very low. > > > > > >Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp > >Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the > >public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive! Frankly for bio-technical reason I doub't a habitable planet is possible. If its to unlie us biochemically its uninhabitable. If its like Earth, it would be leathal to any organism thats compatible, but not evolved in its eco sphere. Kelly >Your club is a good start, there are also other avenues that help. ANYTHING > >that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along. > >Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path. From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2358" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2358 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19448 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19442 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2TLDa17798 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:32 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <26299255.361c31d8@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:32 EDT In a message dated 10/6/98 8:32:16 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: > > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far > > >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic > > >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of > > >that. > > > > Two problems with that. > > > > 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar > > missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within > > the next century or two. > > > > 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid. > >I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050 >we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to >stage an interstellar exploration mission. > >Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology >still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned >starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and >technology, is beginning to look a bit slim. The ships are technically possible, but unaffordable without a major automation jump. Past 2050 thouwe have no way to figure out what technologies we'ld be using since new science physics would start to be coming out of the pipline. > > In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down > > the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich > > enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a > > flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home. > > > > Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss. > >That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are >plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to >bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had >that concept), such as the people who colonized the South >Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago. >You seem to be considering only recent European examples of >colonization. No those colonization acts worked for the same reason and possibly one other (the other being they were driven out of there homes). Land to hunter gatherers and farmers is money in the bank. Not applicaple in an interstallar colonization question thou sine the other planets would be biologically toxic. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["745" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:31:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 745 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19901 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19892; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 7EVGa10656; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:31:01 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:31:01 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 1:35:29 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >L. Parker writes: > > Will it be possible or not? > > > > > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > > > everyone else think? > > > > I vote YES. > > > > Lee > >I wasn't really intending to call into question the currently >stated goal of the design project to build a manned interstellar >mission by 2050. All I really meant to say was that at this time >it seems sort of unlikely that our future will turn out like >that, but mainly for social rather than technical reasons. > >I do think that if it really became a worldwide social priority >in the near future to take that first step to the stars in 2050, >it could happen. I agree. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8599" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:51" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "284" "Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8599 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19722 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19712 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WBGa03786 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:51 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:51 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 7:29:04 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >Hi Group, > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >> >> >> > >> >The most believable scenario achieveable by >> 2050 >> >that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and >> >particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt- >> based >> >infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then >> pulse >> >propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with >> neutron >> >damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium >> >reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power >> scenarios, >> >> Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse fusino >> system. > >Such as? What fuels can we use? Lithium? Does anyone know how to start a lithium >reaction? Add the right isotope of Lith a bit of hydrogen, and a LOT of power. ;) >> >> >but >> >they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's >a >> bit >> >hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or >> fusion >> >systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050? >> >> You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have >> masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't >> afford them. But then perhaps perfecting such systems could drive a government >> to fund such a program as a show piece. > >Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von neumann >replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge >solettas won't be unreasonable. There so high leverage they would alter the fabric of society and technology. Past that we can't really guess what the tech would be like, or if manned flighed would be replaced by robot AI birds. (Thou those would be very hard to get funding for.) However some type of major jump in AI or automatino tech seem virtually assured by 2050. >I suspect any really high energy system will be >some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher efficiency, >at least in principle. > >> >> >> > >> >I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is >> filled >> >with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is >> underway. >> >That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off- >> Earth >> >than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common- >> place. >> >Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber- >> augmentation, >> >plus >> >various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be >> able >> >to >> >go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void. >> >> These are a lot of assumptions. > >True. > >> The one thing we did all agree was that we >> couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would >> credibly be. > >I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with >independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of >space-interest groups.] Advabxed nano replicators or trans human inteligence AI's could shake stuff up pretty radically. Or a few breakthroughs in physics (zero-point energy, inertial damping, kenetic energy systhasis, etc) could make our stuff look pretty dated. Then of course if someone does figure our a Albuquen(sp) warp drive system... ;) >> > >> >I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are >> fusion >> >drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion >> pulse, >> >we >> >haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high- >> Tc >> >superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what >> is >> >possible? >> >> We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the next >> 50 years into functioning drives. > >We do? Have you seen DoD research that the rest of us haven't? Comercial research in pulsed fusion reactors got pretty far in the 80's, and several promising alternate fusion concepts are gathering dust. I said they "could reasonably be developed", not that they were working. >> Life support and food storage that would >> last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all we >> need to build a 40ish% of c system. > >0.4c! Are you kidding? What sort of mass-ratio do you need for that using fusion? >1000/1? Its listed in the Explorer pages or Fuel/Sail. As I remember it was about 100 to 1, with boost to speed from external power. >> Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed >> power and fusinon system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However unless >> some manufacturing advance brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for it. > >Perhaps we should invoke ultra-cheap nano-systems so starflight is possible by >2050. > >> >> >> >If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha >> >Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What >> would >> >it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand >> HLLV >> >flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs, >> and >> >the >> >risks of terrorism and so forth. >> >> Actually it would be harder to do multi century flight, and really stupid to >> do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make >> incredible strides, so unless you can get there in a couple of decades, you >> should just wait for a faster ship. > >Which is why I posited Orion. It is unreasonable for manned starflight, but my >point was it's what we can do NOW. But it is too slow to be worth doing. >> > >> >So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly >> >possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class >> liberals >> >that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some >> >god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety >> of >> >reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are >> more >> >likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a >> life, >> >it'll be a life. >> >> Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay >> their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing >> Manhatten. > >It won't be if they're independent. Now a days we can't even make countries completly independant, citys need major interaction. >> >> Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable >> planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years. > >Millions if it's static. Static systems would die quicker, but if you assume a little recycling or tech advancement it goes well beyond that. >> There'd be no need >> to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch a >> interstellar colony? > >Why? Why not? Loss of money, isolation, reduced access to new technology, Danger, generatinos of hardshio[ compared to styay at homes with no obvious up side ever. >> > >> >So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small >> scale >> >Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not >> >several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's >> really >> >silly. >> >> Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it, but >> someday we'll be able too. > >Assumes more than we can know. I believe we'll be able to, but that's no guarantee >it'll ever happen. The really silly aspect is the accelerations required. At a >gee >it takes years to get around, even when we're counting tau time and not flat time. >Anything quicker requires higher accelerations. Unless you cancel inertia or want >to float in a tank like a newt, then it's impossible to fit a starflight into just >a couple of years. Small groups wouldn't survive over the years realistically >needed to get between stars, so I think the minimum would be ~ 500. A Greek city >state size of 10,000 - 30,000 would be better, and more likely to spend a few >years processing Jovian gases or comet ices to get the fuel. > >But I'm just guessing. Anyone got a way of boosting a ship to 0.999995 c in a >hurry? 1 G would get you to light speed in about a year ship-time. >Adam Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3012" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3012 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20618 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20568 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 9MWEa18748; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:41 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@playlink.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:41 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 9:58:22 AM, david@playlink.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Steve VanDevender[SMTP:stevev@efn.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and >> something to push against. >> >> I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050 >> we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to >> stage an interstellar exploration mission. >> >> Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology >> still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned >> starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and >> technology, is beginning to look a bit slim. >> >Well, I think we can all agree that it is economically unlikely for an >interstellar mission to be launched within the next fifty years. I >suppose one might ask the question whether or not that matters? I think >the original idea was to discuss the mission from a more technical >standpoint, although I certainly wouldn't want to exclude other >discussions. Would it be worthwhile to instead discuss the question: >"How would we get to a nearby star given that there is a directive to go >(the reason being irrelevant) and that there are unlimited funds (well, >limited by the planet's resources), launching in 2050?" Or would >everyone feel uncomfortable with a discussion on that level? > >Now, by "unlimited funds" I don't mean building a starship the size of >our moon - there's still a question of what we can physically accomplish >by the time the launch deadline comes around. If we took the next fifty >years to build something (coming up with something enormous) we'd be >limited by a design of today (i.e. fission, sail, etc). If we want to >use a design from 2040 (i.e. fusion, maybe antimatter), we'd have to be >able to build it in ten years. > >Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch >an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define >"interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already >on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned >mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, >within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically >capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I >don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that >next). Will it be possible or not? > >My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does >everyone else think? Technically possible almost certainly yes, but at a stagering cost. But then who in 1919 would have thought we could afford Saturn-V rockets by 1969. Kelly >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine david@playlink.com >Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ >PlayLink (212) 387-8200 >Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3142" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:59" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "77" "Re: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3142 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21623 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:37:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA21618 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 4BLUa02316; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:59 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <97e9dbd4.361c31f3@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:59 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: David Levine >> [...] >> >> Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch >> an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define >> "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already >> on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). >> I don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that >> next). Will it be possible or not? >> >> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does >> everyone else think? >> >Good question. >There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid. >Mine is "possibly, provided...". >More precisely, I see two basic problems here: >1. Propulsion >2. Infrastructure > >Ad. 1: Propulsion >----------------- >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible >from our perspective, namely: >- fusion rocket; >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, >a prototype build and tested in space. >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur >in the foreseable future. breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none. Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat now, its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors. So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. >Ad. 2: Infrastructure >--------------------- >I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without >extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines >and space factories. It must of course start from building >permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. >Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow - >it is even more annoyning than the slow progres in point (1) above, >as the progress in this area already needs no essential breaktroughs >in science or technology, only the will and money. Here we agree. Unless your pretty heavily along in doing things in this solar system, your not likely to be worrying about interstellar. >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years >is very, very low. We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then Apollo didn't make any sence eiather. >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1457" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "00:05:05" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1457 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19235 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA19229 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202) id AAA02358; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:12:20 -0500 Received: from wf-5-9.wavefront.com(204.73.244.187), claiming to be "urly-bird.com" via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa02344; Thu Oct 8 05:12:09 1998 Message-ID: <361C4801.7648C2B9@urly-bird.com> Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/ X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kevin Houston From: Kevin Houston Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:05:05 -0500 perhaps we could just mandate a drive with given parameters, and content ourselves with design of the ship and living quarters, life support etc. perhaps we could do that for several different drive types (FTL vs multi-generational vs near relativistic. that way, if any of the breakthruoghs happen, we will have the start of a design. David Levine wrote: > Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch > an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define > "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already > on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I > don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > next). Will it be possible or not? > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > everyone else think? > ------------------------------------------------------ > David Levine david@playlink.com > Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ > PlayLink (212) 387-8200 > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. -- Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/ Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5 From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1026" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "07:36:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1026 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20995 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:56 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA20988 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA10427; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:48 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bdf2b8$54cbf980$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <26295850.361c1f71@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:51 -0500 Kelly, > > I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start > by launching > fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a > compeling reason to > launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off. > The one place > we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space > platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system. > > What angle are you figuring on here? > At some point in time, whether it is fifty years from now or a hundred and fifty, crossing the gulf between the stars will have become simple. I am not making any predictions as to how, just that it will. At that point in time a whole new set of driving factors comes in to play, factors that don't even exist right now in some cases. When a slightly modified freighter or mining ship can make the crossing, everybody and their brother WILL be going. I did not mean it so much as a single agency or organization would be launching fleets of ships, just that "fleets" of ships would be leaving. Lee From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["296" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "07:37:05" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 296 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21012 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:37:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA21000 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA10436; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bdf2b8$5b715460$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5d34cf52.361c31db@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:37:05 -0500 Kelly, A lot of the North American colonies were first scouted out by fishermen. Most of the colonies from Virginia northward started out as fishing camps that were occupied seasonally for many years before the first "colonists" came to stay, and they came on freighters and fishing boats. Lee From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2058" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:45:37" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "48" "starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2058 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22491 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA22476 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne7p18.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.210]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04889 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:47:34 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <361CB3EF.FFD42184@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AJ Crowl From: AJ Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:45:37 +1000 Hi Group, David Levine wrote: > So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I > don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > next). Will it be possible or not? > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > everyone else think? > ------------------------------------------------------ > David Levine david@playlink.com > Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ > PlayLink (212) 387-8200 > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the current state of space who can blame me? I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book "Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rust arounding the US. I could be wrong, if someone develops an inertialess drive. And vacuum energy tapping. But since this is an engineering exercise I'm willing to go along with it. Just how far ahead can we imagine? Tech-wise I mean. Another point is how willing we are to invoke antimatter, but just how much energy can it realistically produce in a rocket jet? I've heard estimates of only 1 - 2 %. That'd be fine [better than fusion], but we'd need to make the stuff in massive quantities. Ultra-high energy density lasers are becoming possible, so some sort of direct conversion system might yet happen in the near term. Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. Pardon my ignore but what's VASIMR? Adam From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2640" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "10:49:06" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "57" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2640 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20363 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA20347 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:49:07 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2C4@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:49:06 -0400 > ---------- > From: AJ Crowl[SMTP:ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 8:45 AM > Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be > launching > Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some > Orbital > Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be > starting to > pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but > given the > current state of space who can blame me? > > Actually, I'm gathering optimism about the state of the space industry - not because of NASA, but because of private companies. The X Prize is just one of things that is giving me confidence for the future of space travel. Sometimes people give timelines of where they think space travel will be over the next fifty years, and it normally involves the government and NASA (i.e. by this year we will return to the moon, by that year we will be at Mars, etc.). Instead, I'd like to offer a timeline for commercial space endeavors: 2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism. 2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism. 2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research into materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing. 2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon, experimental private industry research into asteroid mining. 2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first asteroid mining. Private companies will lead the way to a permanent presence in space, as long as there is money there. And we all know there is. However, asteroid mining and the like will be easier if there is an existing launch infrastructure, and I think this will be facilitated by space tourism. Yes, this tourism will mainly be for the rich in the beginning, but it doesn't matter if it helps jump start everything and eventually we all get to go. I may never get to another star, and I may never go to Mars or even the moon... but I'm pretty confident that before my life is over I will have gotten the chance to see the Earth from space. Call your senator today and tell them to vote YES on H. Res. 572. This bill (recently passed by the House) allows private U.S. companies to send reusable launch vehicles into space. The D.O.T. will license such companies. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4955" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "17:21:43" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "131" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4955 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26860 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA26783 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA09937; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:21:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810081621.RAA09937@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:21:43 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Ad. 1: Propulsion > > ----------------- > > I think it will not be possible, unless some real breakthrough > > occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible > > from our perspective, namely: > > - fusion rocket; > > First generation under test at JPL > As far as I know, still only on paper. Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by actual fusion reaction? > > - giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); > > - antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). > > First generation under test at JPL > Ditto. And what about the antimatter factory? Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter in several million years, counting optimistically... And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter for years on? > > I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, > > a prototype build and tested in space. > > VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket, > it is close in terms of performance... > We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning the performance. > > Ad. 2: Infrastructure > > --------------------- > > I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without > > extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines > > and space factories. > > True, but... > > > It must of course start from building > > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. > > Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some > cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own > reasons . > First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully automated without human supervision, and will not without real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances (remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon (ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...). Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human habitat in space", and rather large for that. How to build one without any prior experience? Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be that going to another star? > > Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow - > > it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above, > > as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs > > in science or technology, only the will and money. > > Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech > base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation > to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge. > Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as > we go along, probably a LOT better. > True, but we should START going in the first place. Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step, we made two steps back. With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, and not always ahead. Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders will build the necessary space infrastructure. So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating (for Sagan). > > Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, > > change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, > > the probability of launching a starship within fifty years > > is very, very low. > > Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp > Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the > public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive! > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will be either inhabitable, or deadly. Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction than help. > Your club is a good start, > Thank you. Americans have such clubs aplenty and are certainly the foremost spacefaring nation in today's world. Most other nations are in deep freeze here (except, possibly, Japanese), but including most Europeans, despite ESA. Our humble attempt is to rouse some interest in space exploration, mostly among Poles. We are also involved in organizing the Polish Chapter of Mars Society. We will see if it produces any effects on this side of the Big Puddle. > there are also other avenues that help. > ANYTHING that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along. > Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path. > Here I fully agree. -- Zenon Kulpa * * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * * http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan] From VM Thu Oct 8 12:34:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2046" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "12:27:28" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2046 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13330 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA13230 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante27.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante27.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.101]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA56526 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:30 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante27.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA49466 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <361C4801.7648C2B9@urly-bird.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Kevin, I agree with you on this point. Many of the missions call for accelerations of 10 m/ss. Assuming the ship has a small (say 1 to 5) numberof engines, designing engine mounts and superstructure that can take the strain of accelerating tons of spacecraft is quite a challenge. Of course, keeping things light is a challenge as well. Prehaps we should think about a ship around a "black box" engine with a constant thrust of so many newtons, so much mass, etc. Nels On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Kevin Houston wrote: > perhaps we could just mandate a drive with given parameters, and > content ourselves with design of the ship and living quarters, > life support etc. > > perhaps we could do that for several different drive types (FTL > vs multi-generational vs near relativistic. > > that way, if any of the breakthruoghs happen, we will have the > start of a design. > > > David Levine wrote: > > > Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch > > an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define > > "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already > > on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > > mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > > within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > > capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I > > don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > > next). Will it be possible or not? > > > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does > > everyone else think? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David Levine david@playlink.com > > Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ > > PlayLink (212) 387-8200 > > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > > -- > Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/ > Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5 > From VM Thu Oct 8 16:05:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3110" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "17:53:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "74" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3110 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14360 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA14308 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA11930; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:54:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bdf30e$882bb760$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810081621.RAA09937@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:53:56 -0500 Zenon, > As far as I know, still only on paper. > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by > actual fusion reaction? No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions and verified the energy output. In other words, the technology has been proven - the actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper. > Ditto. > And what about the antimatter factory? > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter > in several million years, counting optimistically... > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter > for years on? The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be able to produce within the next twenty years. Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested (they drove around the U.S. with the storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I guess it worked.) > > VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket, > > it is close in terms of performance... > > > We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning > the performance. VASIMR's performance isn't in question, the engine is fired on a regular schedule and its performance is a known quantity. It hasn't been FLOWN yet however. > First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully > automated without human supervision, and will not without > real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. > Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances > (remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon > (ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...). > Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human > habitat in space", and rather large for that. > How to build one without any prior experience? > Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be > that going to another star? For the first part, these are relatively minor problems involving no new technology, just development and refinement of known ones. Yes, this will take time, but I would hardly characterize this as a major road block. For the second part I would just reiterate the argument I already gave, the only way to get the experience we need is to start doing it. It is a self reinforcing process, the more we work and live in space, the better we get at it. Again, hardly a major obstacle. > > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will > be either inhabitable, or deadly. The only way to find out is to go. Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets, I think we should start buy settling the system, planets are for sheep...and sheep herders. > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction > than help. Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I. Lee From VM Thu Oct 8 16:27:36 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1200" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "18:12:28" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1200 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27157 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:12:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA27033 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA15158 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:12:40 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bdf311$1e7f6160$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:12:28 -0500 Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number lets do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of performance based on the following divisions: LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c) MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec, total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c) HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c) All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel, change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be doubled). Comments or suggestions? Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1504" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "21:08:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1504 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19685 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 SAA19635 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2FJDa02343 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:08:16 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <9097763e.361d6200@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:08:16 EDT In a message dated 10/7/98 9:49:06 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: > >> The one place >> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space >> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system. > >??? Can't settle the planets? I assume you are referring to biotoxins >and such. Yes. >I disagree, I think it is quite likely that by the time we >begin serious exploration/colonization of other solar systems, we will >have bio-medical systems capable of stopping any problems like bacterial >contamination. If so, and the planet has a decent >atmosphere/temperature/etc., I say colonize it. Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on our boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window. Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why god cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was the euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino source. We're talking about total historic isolation. >Kyle R. Mcallister Kelly From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2226" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "19:27:47" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2226 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15498 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason04.u.washington.edu (root@jason04.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15448 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante08.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante08.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.10]) by jason04.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id TAA24448 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:48 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante08.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id TAA87638 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <000a01bdf311$1e7f6160$c05931cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Lee, here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories. An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's electronics would have to be special built to take the strain). Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few seconds. As for the middle range, having done some aerobatics myself, I can truthfully relate that taking three gees is somewhat uncomfortable, and doctors know that it isn't good for you in the long run. NASA has probably done gee tolerance studies that give better numbers, but I personally would be loath to spend the next several years at more than 1.5 gees. Best Regards Nels On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be > is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening > between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number lets > do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define > performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of > ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of > performance based on the following divisions: > > LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in > delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c) > > MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire > mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec, > total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c) > > HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum > acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c) > > All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel, > change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to > decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be > doubled). > > Comments or suggestions? > > Lee > > From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["922" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "21:50:49" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 922 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23395 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:53:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA23386 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-31.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.31]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA03733 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:50:49 -0700 N. Lindberg wrote: > > Lee, > here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories. > An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's > electronics would have to be special built to take the strain). > Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few > seconds. I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any thoughts on this one? Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["543" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:30:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 543 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02574 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA02554 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00535; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:37 -0500 Message-ID: <001201bdf335$21dba160$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:16 -0500 Kyle, The idea is being studied, but it faces two hurdles: 1) People are much more massive than frogs, we can't generate that strong of a field, and 2) We don't know what the long term effects of exposure to these fields are. > I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments > (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a > starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then > again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any > thoughts on this one? Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2035" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:30:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "starship-design: Revised Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2035 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02558 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA02544 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00527; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: <001101bdf335$1f3c3e60$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: Revised Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:11 -0500 Nels, Those were peak accelerations, not sustained. The high end version would only sustain 1 g for any length of time (preferably continuously). Obviously no engine design would be run at maximum power continuously, So I was using a ratio of about 1 to 10 to be cautious. The low end would peak at 1 g and therefore would "cruise" at 1/10 g, the middle range would peak at 3 g's and cruise at 1/3 g, and the high end would peak at 9 g's and cruise at 1 g. There was no special reason for picking these exact figures, I just wanted a safety margin and they sounded good. > An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's > electronics would have to be special built to take the strain). > Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few > seconds. > As for the middle range, having done some aerobatics myself, I can > truthfully relate that taking three gees is somewhat uncomfortable, and > doctors know that it isn't good for you in the long run. > NASA has probably done gee tolerance studies that give better > numbers, but I personally would be loath to spend the next several years > at more than 1.5 gees. Okay, here they are reworded: LOW: Thrust is not continuous, normal acceleration is 1 m/sec, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c) MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire mission duration, normal acceleration is 3 m/sec, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec, total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c) HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, normal acceleration is 10 m/sec, maximum acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c) Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["920" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:38:20" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 920 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05372 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:38:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA05364 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA01997; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:38:42 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bdf336$428a8600$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:38:20 -0500 Nels, > An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > continue with the idea of manned missions.... MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs, most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9 g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum design load. As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec (1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume that is why you wrote the m/ss? Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["865" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "01:15:22" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 865 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA13063 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA13058 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202) id BAA16333; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 01:22:41 -0500 Received: from wf-5-5.wavefront.com(204.73.244.183), claiming to be "urly-bird.com" via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa16328; Fri Oct 9 06:22:31 1998 Message-ID: <361DA9FA.FEB88D69@urly-bird.com> Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/ X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001201bdf335$21dba160$c05931cc@lparker> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kevin Houston From: Kevin Houston Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Starship Design Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 01:15:22 -0500 But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of contact with a solid object. L. Parker wrote: > > Kyle, > > The idea is being studied, but it faces two hurdles: > > 1) People are much more massive than frogs, we can't generate that strong of > a field, and > 2) We don't know what the long term effects of exposure to these fields are. > > > I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments > > (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a > > starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then > > again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any > > thoughts on this one? > > Lee -- Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/ Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5 From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3499" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "14:55:43" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3499 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09263 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA09252 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA10954; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:55:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810091355.OAA10954@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:55:43 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > [...] > >Ad. 1: Propulsion > >----------------- > >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough > >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible > >from our perspective, namely: > >- fusion rocket; > >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); > >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). > >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, > >a prototype build and tested in space. > >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur > >in the foreseable future. > > breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. > I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. > The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none.> I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust still wait for breaktroughs. Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers - that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it highly impractical, if at all possible to build and keep in operation for tens of years. Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question of efficiency, but not only). The question of scale is important - for interstellar propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now, which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work. Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion... > Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat , > now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost > interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors. > So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. > Not necessarily. They may find different application niches. > >Ad. 2: Infrastructure > >--------------------- [...] > > >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, > >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, > >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years > >is very, very low. > > We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never > did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then > Apollo didn't make any sence eiather. > No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly): to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik). And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political). Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts, most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo was promptly wasted. As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen, or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology power step. Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1965" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "15:58:44" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "50" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1965 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25051 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA25035 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA11003; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:44 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810091458.PAA11003@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:44 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > [...] > >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing > >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate > >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System. > >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible > >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich > >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private > >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here. > >The Mars Society awaits us... > > These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government > suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization > as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late > seabottom bases to ocean colonization. > Possibly, but you must start from something. Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me. > >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. > >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even > >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for > >> one thing - a new chance on a new world. > >> > >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly > >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way... > > Not likely. ;) > Not likely what? > You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team > and abondon them there to die. > That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda! My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not to understand that! Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-)) > Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization > missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on > Earthly colonization projects. > Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, interplanetary-space society. -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 9 10:03:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5822" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:51:31" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "146" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5822 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19300 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA19242 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA11091; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:51:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810091651.RAA11091@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:51:31 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > As far as I know, still only on paper. > > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by > > actual fusion reaction? > > No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions > and verified the energy output. > Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! > In other words, the technology has been proven - the > actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper. > > > Ditto. > > And what about the antimatter factory? > > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter > > in several million years, counting optimistically... > > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter > > for years on? > > The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and > AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be > able to produce within the next twenty years. > But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight, not a single ICAN spacecraft. > Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested > The current containers can store only picograms or even less of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter), and can store the antiprotons only for few days (they slowly annihilate inside...). Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods and technology. > (they drove around the U.S. with the > storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I > guess it worked.) > That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will be possible... Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter on U.S. highways? I doubt that. > > > VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket, > > > it is close in terms of performance... > > > > > We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning > > the performance. > > VASIMR's performance isn't in question, the engine is fired on a regular > schedule and its performance is a known quantity. It hasn't been FLOWN yet > however. > You say it has performance good enough to put it into a starship? > > First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully > > automated without human supervision, and will not without > > real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. > > Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances > > (remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon > > (ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...). > > Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human > > habitat in space", and rather large for that. > > How to build one without any prior experience? > > Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be > > that going to another star? > > For the first part, these are relatively minor problems involving no new > technology, just development and refinement of known ones. Yes, this will > take time, but I would hardly characterize this as a major road block. > Possibly, but I would not bet too much for that... > For the second part I would just reiterate the argument I already gave, the > only way to get the experience we need is to start doing it. It is a self > reinforcing process, the more we work and live in space, the better we get > at it. > Seems to be a misunderstanding here. I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship is "not necessarily" needed... > > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet > > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will > > be either inhabitable, or deadly. > > The only way to find out is to go. > Exactly. Almost. I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth. I am in no way against going to find out. > Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets, > I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for > sheep...and sheep herders. > Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet (in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat for a significant number of people), that building equivalent artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. > > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, > > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. > > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction > > than help. > > Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc > Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I. > I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs). However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding a "habitable" planet around another star. At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there within the life of this generation. It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most) of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly habitable planet around another star may stir some public interest, not earlier. I see that I must add a proper disclaimer: ------------------------------------------ I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think. My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately) may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence where a call to arms seems more appropriate. -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 9 10:19:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1502" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "10:12:14" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1502 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29484 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29413 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante25.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante25.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.99]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA17668 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:17 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante25.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA65952 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Kyle, I read an article on this in Physics Today recently. For _one_ human, you would need a magnet as large as your living room, and the person couldn't move around much. A religious leader wanted one to levitate him in front of his audience, bad luck. As for the health effects of magnetic fields, volunteers have spent time in fields up to 7 (I think) gauss with no measureable ill effects. Also, being levitated doesn't seem to bother the frogs much. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > N. Lindberg wrote: > > > > Lee, > > here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories. > > An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > > impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > > gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > > take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > > continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's > > electronics would have to be special built to take the strain). > > Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few > > seconds. > > I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments > (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a > starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then > again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any > thoughts on this one? > > Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Fri Oct 9 15:36:24 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4377" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:09:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "99" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4377 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22990 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:11:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA22887 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p284.gnt.com [204.49.91.44]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA21396; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:11:21 -0500 Message-ID: <002601bdf3d1$8d31af80$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810091651.RAA11091@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:09:56 -0500 Zenon, > > No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions > > and verified the energy output. > > > Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy > balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps you should check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the data is there. > But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight, > not a single ICAN spacecraft. True, but we have to start somewhere. You will note however that the AIMSTAR paper uses some of the results of the ICAN testing at JPL and includes a rather startling observation. ICAN assumed that the antimatter would be consumed each time by the reaction, actually, it was not. It took three or four cycles before it had to be replenished. It is only a catalyst remember. > The current containers can store only picograms or even less > of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter), > and can store the antiprotons only for few days > (they slowly annihilate inside...). > > Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years > without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods > and technology. Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read. ICAN and AIMSTAR don't need tons. An interstellar drive based on an outgrowth of AIMSTAR would only need a few grams, I don't see a problem. > > (they drove around the U.S. with the > > storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're > still here so I > > guess it worked.) > > > That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time > it will be possible... > Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter > on U.S. highways? I doubt that. Well, it isn't really all that dangerous, even if the Penning Trap had failed, it would only have gotten a little hot, its not like it would have exploded or anything. Since it isn't an explosive, poison or hazardous waste, no permits are required. > You say it has performance good enough to put it into > a starship? VASIMR? Heck no. Its strictly interplanetary. Unlike the ACMF proposals it will never scale to interstellar. However, it uses several technologies which are crucial to enhancing the performance of later generation of ACMF or even true antimatter drives. The fact that it is ready for flight testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted an example of a real working space drive, I provided one. > Seems to be a misunderstanding here. > I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly > that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote > that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship > is "not necessarily" needed... Nope, I said it wasn't necessary to build a manned habitat to mine asteroids. Then promptly intimated that WE would prefer that they were manned because we need the experience working in space precisely because it was necessary in order to build a starship. > Exactly. Almost. > I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth. > I am in no way against going to find out. Oh I think given a few more years we will be able to tell from here whether it has an Earthlike atmosphere or not - which doesn't necessarily mean that it is "habitable". Which is why I said the only way to find out is to go. > Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet > (in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat > for a significant number of people), that building equivalent > artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. Well, I think most people, including the general public would agree with you there. I am just saying that it makes more sense to settle the system's asteroids, moons and other ore rich bodies first, but that is a whole different argument. > I see that I must add a proper disclaimer: > ------------------------------------------ > I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think. > My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved > and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that > all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately) > may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence > where a call to arms seems more appropriate. I agree. Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 15:44:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["606" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "16:40:49" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 606 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04911 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 OAA04877 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p206.gnt.com [204.49.89.206]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA15774; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:42:02 -0500 Message-ID: <002001bdf3cd$7c15f160$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <361DA9FA.FEB88D69@urly-bird.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kevin Houston" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:40:49 -0500 > > But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon > it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of > contact with a solid object. > Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying. The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is. Lee From VM Fri Oct 9 15:44:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["940" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "16:40:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 940 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04856 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 OAA04835 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p206.gnt.com [204.49.89.206]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA15794; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:42:07 -0500 Message-ID: <002101bdf3cd$7e1e4480$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <361DAC4D.5793EFF0@urly-bird.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kevin Houston" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:40:54 -0500 Kevin, > > These are good numbers, but I agree with Nels, that the max. thrust > numbers seem a little bit high. Especially on the HIGH: thrust engine. > But if we cut that down, or state that it is only a short-term maximum, > then I think Lee's numbers are good. > > > How about > > LOW: Continuous thrust at .1 g > Transient thrust at 1 g for 10 hours max. > > MED: Continuous thrust at .33 g > Transient thrust at 3 g for 3 hours max. > > HIGH: Continuous thrust at 1 g > Transient thrust at 6 g for 1 hour max. > > All delta v numbers should be for a ship of a given mass, say 1000 tons > total weight. > I agree with the proposed modifications, I did attempt to state that all of the *big* numbers were peak or transient values. I didn't think about a definite time limit though, which is probably a good idea. I will repost a new version later this evening after I've incorporated any other suggestions. Lee From VM Sat Oct 10 12:02:48 1998 Content-Length: 12776 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12776" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:58:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "273" "starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12776 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25644 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA25577 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p219.gnt.com [204.49.89.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA29641 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:59:43 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01bdf3d8$51a07e40$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:58:23 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00" ------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, here is a new and improved engine specification. Everyone please review it for any further suggestions. Revised Engine Performance Specifications LOW a.. Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.1 g b.. Continuous acceleration duration is limited to 1/3 length of mission c.. Transient (peak) acceleration at 1 g for a maximum of ten hours d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 100,000 km/sec e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 100 tons MEDIAN a.. Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.33 g b.. Continuous acceleration duration is limited to 2/3 length of mission c.. Transient (peak) acceleration at 3 g's for a maximum of three hours d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 200,000 km/sec e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 1,000 tons HIGH a.. Continuous thrust is limited to 1.0 g b.. Continuous acceleration duration is entire length of mission c.. Transient (peak) acceleration is 6 g's for a maximum of 1 hour d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 300,000 km/sec e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 10,000 tons Lee A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein ------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay, here is a=20 new and improved engine specification. Everyone please review it for any = further=20 suggestions.
 
Revised Engine = Performance=20 Specifications
 
LOW
  • Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.1=20 g
  • Continuous acceleration duration is limited to = 1/3 length of=20 mission
  • Transient (peak)=20 acceleration at 1 g for a maximum of ten = hours
  • Maximum increase=20 in delta v is 100,000 km/sec
  • Maximum vehicle=20 payload mass is 100 tons
MEDIAN
  • Continuous=20 acceleration is limited to 0.33 g
  • Continuous=20 acceleration duration is limited to 2/3 length of=20 mission
  • Transient (peak)=20 acceleration at 3 g's for a maximum of three = hours
  • Maximum increase=20 in delta v is 200,000 km/sec
  • Maximum vehicle payload mass is = 1,000=20 tons
HIGH
  • Continuous=20 thrust is limited to 1.0 g
  • Continuous=20 acceleration duration is entire length of = mission
  • Transient (peak)=20 acceleration is 6 g's for a maximum of 1 = hour
  • Maximum increase=20 in delta v is 300,000 km/sec
  • Maximum vehicle=20 payload mass is 10,000 tons
Lee

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, = butcher a=20 hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, = build a=20 wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, = cooperate, act=20 alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a = computer,=20 cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is = for=20 insects.=20

-- Robert A. Heinlein

------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00-- ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640 Content-Type: image/gif; name="Tech Tools.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <650213622@09101998-0fd6> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 R0lGODlhIANyAKL/AAAAADMzM2ZmZpmZmcDAwAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAAQALAAAAAAgA3IAQAP/ SCqi/jAOQIcC8QmKMxSWJ45kaZ5oqq5s675wLM90bd94ru987/80SwPGAYQyRUeRAgIBn9CodEqt Wq/YrHbL3R4XSkBgNNgUA+UkYTyhZIbduHxOr9vv+Lx+jxt8MwMBFGMjHRFLHH98i4yNjo+QkZKT cW2IHoYegmKKEXCUoKGio6SlpqcxThCJBENngUuEImYOn62ouLm6u7y9vjxNlxccIpaZLQ2dv8vM zc7P0Hh+Jhy2qwqWyiUM0d3e3+Dh4i1l2g+smIDEJ4HW4+/w8fLzpscRm8qZANabHp/u9AIKHEiw YJQ/mcqsMoLkkD0ClmYZnEixosWLJfLtcxCI/6Obaw6HoPG4jiPGkyhTqhz3x9ogCRuVeGhjzpa5 lThz6tz5SMgJdIdEbJI1IhnPo0iTKpUzbYUZfUVfZry5tKrVq1jJPUyxhARQEQyzih1LtiyEplRL dK319OMbk2bjyp27s6lDt2ohbEJkaCtEuoADCzbYLkAAAYYR742FuHFiQY4VK+Yr5vBjy2kHa97M uVe+MHyJEvB712/mzqhTq5YUAuDoItxA4yUHd7Xt27gdkcZWEpMaF2FzCx9OvEvaiGAXzjahqrjz 59Cf7IbYG+Rf5duwRd/OvXsMRa6ryzz3sKS7097Tq4eu8G9bhkf8DAIRYkJ9P/iu/11cH6Lr9f8A BlicXR9ItRBCvnUiC3oCNuhgak39J95IF4C1nCcPZqghbhOowIFooxVyYUMblmhiYO2xkE2IIk53 y4kwxjhWOUSIpxyIZ/0n4448qjSEjsx9+MARsA0ySAgdMNjjkkzOYxccNhby2oftIXdPk1hmiZGC 1AU3ZCwdykaSlzgqqeWZaP5C4F0/eUJZTGnGKaeTxfBlQSCK2IMnZSSYOeefgLLmlZ1oIHhWocZ8 9UGgjDaKijmJwhYUNSPW5uilmEaiiGhAFUEkLJ6qwxCOQGZq6qmVOIDjlHeCsBgGLpJnyCd+omrr rT9YkORQTPz2xV6lkvAjrsQWi0VzmkQp5gv/7Rjr7LNArOmbl0GtSE6w0GarrQppbSKhrNgOWeu2 5JbLolqVnluLspiMa+67zt5pwlDJTXuCUfDmq+9ZtaDrlyEdYVcMNu7ua3CmX0hL0mfrbrrcHwUf LDHCqoqazpcPmeFauBN3jClCQAVMy6TkHUFhKyNG7PHKWiJrDCHxtYEob/eBOo28icLhh8os97yk wlO6s9xDbZz1hZ4+J32qtLLYONtWyp6n9NSX2rWqgeueMxPWJFLttaPDDop0hdNSleTXaMtJ408V dA1TuhxxnPbcGwLd4jGkKToTz3T3vZ3d/rpCBruW+m14jGG2sJe6b7sY6+GQr7cBDG2JbXbk/5iX 2AQMlqw6zGz2oWwE35mX3hngKBhjoVtrkW7665u1JoOk2n0OJ8Sw575efEZ7uBcbTKRRaX+6Fx8d ra21nVEDRqx1y1NvFW789Lnx8/ngztPepT2iuU7991UBNAYTGVBIpAZnOM84+OznZk5+1JS2hAWe e9/+/TndxEChed3DJxn4C6BmXCO8V9TLTXwBoAAXSBf61O5OoWlVNdLgqgmKbglDIB7qGMjBqqCl QIhIxlMYsIFgBE8Br1LeAzfYwRbyxByUAYhpUngyCbjwhlYxW2jctjc0/IeFOAziUYD3P62ZQGbF sJ8QlygPgMVCe+eqjzv6USYlMvGKztjUXf+OUDnbqRAJHwGRFbFIRl8krBOsgJKnMICsOsXkjGWM 40m0MUEzCKEajyMYvyAyRjn6ERe4W4Cv1kW4e/Hxj4gMCPGyp6xQfaePiYwka9qQDGr9pnx6U4ED JcnJcCTOjbuBIguo1clSPsNxcGse1zwESVO6Eg+lyuR4FkeOVr7yllx4ky53ycte7hKXwATkcdiV CeitIEXBTKYpPtkiKWGMlF6xpTKnOYVYEROM0ASLNKnJzWjF8ovWUU5mNtnNcmpKP6A8IAKP8yJz upMRxBPbAe1hR2GB4Z345MN95Hkx6rxNG7zLp0DvkLAfgnM8wwAjeGI20IbuwXOvkeEqxPj/xe5t 06EYPWI/QbhRlFmDkmsAxEUzStKZ5KhfDunoa0RFwJK6NJe2ONlB1/fFgM0UiC/NaQ0gpj6IGOZC 9OREDYfx0ZHqtKSKscyrLmMZX8biMoh5qlLldtSqHhM8D0MDZEhGnsOATFFGtapDAVK0NSRsaBbD hmgmJ9a29kAbI0tpOMkjAS4mzK14DYImRIdVTvlGojbMq2BfYL2F+W+uhBwBRAfLWBQg721gNOI/ ixLQxlpWo7UTVZ7OZy97ovOyoAXEPd3oEoSyKSOfDa1q9XhE8qkUNFQJ62qnubnWjsg0hWyFbGcL TGb2yWnNpMZueftKtqZOUXmDm2mJC9o2FLINTuuTFTuZe1mnWve616XuYBMAADvO3Ie7e6Vxi+qT zRfp5r1pnSde4ZOfwEpUxgHhxIncmtMShSWwNDkoZmycyrCSpJ5BLsyFyIrcNUSmLzvahEcSTJO4 4EcnsjhsJWIco4LQeJcaCSWT5tKhFRkZk9EIRTYwOqMbsVVEG6FpQSnyygs3ucXbAWsib/Rg1xbn lV9OiU5SGl4uS0YnVQ4JYSzblCNZqb7x9KmQDhMmSXI4mJ9VylL4ypyLJmcpjS1KV7iy2KHaN5ZN qUo8quIU9+CpKk3R01TKcdW8pvP/zZLgi1fj3BW5InLORUEmh+UcE3ZuFs1nWYmXvczUkH5GR/20 Czf/kokGG+OSaHHSkZf6ZHkE4lFO8iyTMYnYYUzppA2Sr5D1yqRRuMZLZ2qGoYQbVjPhxjUHimk7 cmFNu5CnyV2i52wJyhOJjikbjFiIXXn0UwuVWsnzjG+DaPLhNEFpoOE4LGJ9BF/FTDi7paKtOaNs DB9fyq6wLrSiY7mJMGVCShqp8I0KKmZLJ6nVEmmtWXvBV+5sqUiqcvJlsGPXVdCik0sVppaNkZJH Yyk8HHKksBcsz0MjpNgSsjGkf8sdT2nitAXuzpmfWV1Us6pVvB5lI4YR6Q0NWBMzWtVPlZKpCvq6 9KCtFooyPoUiLJ2227qIFGjsCyBlKxuwJAlphi4tkdN6GJVG+u5yyy3kAbe4V7G4DrCt7Z82gwvA qM7QtIUFamLsY9eaCHV1bZmnfOc732sEBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640-- From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4607" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4607 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08977 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08967 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NTSa02329 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:25 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b31b985.361eab55@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:25 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> > It must of course start from building >> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. >> >> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some >> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own >> reasons . >> >First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully >automated without human supervision, and will not without >real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement. >Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances >(remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon >(ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...). Agree. >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human >habitat in space", and rather large for that. >How to build one without any prior experience? >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be >that going to another star? Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be. Size and weight being real biggees. That fact we probably couldn't make it work being a better one. Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly self sufficent. >> > Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow - >> > it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above, >> > as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs >> > in science or technology, only the will and money. >> >> Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech >> base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation >> to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge. >> Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as >> we go along, probably a LOT better. >> >True, but we should START going in the first place. >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step, >we made two steps back. Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have viciously defended. >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, >and not always ahead. >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders >will build the necessary space infrastructure. Big agree. >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating >(for Sagan). Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine for robots and science probes. >> > Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, >> > change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, >> > the probability of launching a starship within fifty years >> > is very, very low. >> >> Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp >> Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the >> public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive! >> >I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet >around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will >be either inhabitable, or deadly. Thanks. >Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, >unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. >Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction >than help. SETI is a no start, but the public is interested in space, they just gave up on NASA boldly going back to the same place they got way beyond in the '60's and killing more folks doing it. >> Your club is a good start, >> >Thank you. >Americans have such clubs aplenty and are certainly the foremost >spacefaring nation in today's world. Most other nations are >in deep freeze here (except, possibly, Japanese), >but including most Europeans, despite ESA. >Our humble attempt is to rouse some interest in space exploration, >mostly among Poles. We are also involved in organizing >the Polish Chapter of Mars Society. >We will see if it produces any effects on this side >of the Big Puddle. > > >> there are also other avenues that help. >> ANYTHING that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along. >> Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path. >> >Here I fully agree. Also agree >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["491" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 491 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08941 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08931 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GQEa17823 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:19 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:19 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 7:42:16 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >A lot of the North American colonies were first scouted out by fishermen. > >Most of the colonies from Virginia northward started out as fishing camps > >that were occupied seasonally for many years before the first "colonists" > >came to stay, and they came on freighters and fishing boats. > > > >Lee Fisherman? Technicaly a fishing camp isn't a colony, also the fishermen came from the colony. Kelly From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1347" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1347 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08952 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08939 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UFNa22759 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:21 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <62962904.361eab51@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:21 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 7:41:10 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > >> > >> I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start > >> by launching > >> fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a > >> compeling reason to > >> launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off. > >> The one place > >> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space > >> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system. > >> > >> What angle are you figuring on here? > >> > > > >At some point in time, whether it is fifty years from now or a hundred and > >fifty, crossing the gulf between the stars will have become simple. I am not > >making any predictions as to how, just that it will. At that point in time a > >whole new set of driving factors comes in to play, factors that don't even > >exist right now in some cases. When a slightly modified freighter or mining > >ship can make the crossing, everybody and their brother WILL be going. I did > >not mean it so much as a single agency or organization would be launching > >fleets of ships, just that "fleets" of ships would be leaving. > > > >Lee Until you can figure out a why, I doubt there will be any more waves of ship going out to colonize the stars then there are trying to colonize Antarctica or te ocean floor. kelly From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3010" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:37" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3010 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09042 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09028 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2RKRa08736 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:37 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:37 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >Hi Group, > >David Levine wrote: > >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that >> next). Will it be possible or not? >> >> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does >> everyone else think? >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> David Levine david@playlink.com >> Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ >> PlayLink (212) 387-8200 >> Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the >current state of space who can blame me? A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not geting chep enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable. Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rust >arounding the US. > >I could be wrong, if someone develops an inertialess drive. And vacuum >energy tapping. > >But since this is an engineering exercise I'm willing to go along with it. >Just how far ahead can we imagine? >Tech-wise I mean. > >Another point is how willing we are to invoke antimatter, but just how much >energy can it realistically produce in a rocket jet? I've heard estimates of >only 1 - 2 %. That'd be fine [better than fusion], but we'd need to make the >stuff in massive quantities. Ultra-high energy density lasers are becoming >possible, so some sort of direct conversion system might yet happen in the >near term. Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. Also the radiatino levels are real bad. Kelly > >Pardon my ignore but what's VASIMR? > >Adam From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2848" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:31" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "68" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2848 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09010 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA08997 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2LNTa02341 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:31 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <9bf76500.361eab5b@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:31 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 10:08:16 AM, david@playlink.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: AJ Crowl[SMTP:ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au] >> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 8:45 AM >> Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it. >> >> Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be >> launching >> Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some >> Orbital >> Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be >> starting to >> pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but >> given the >> current state of space who can blame me? >> >> >Actually, I'm gathering optimism about the state of the space industry - >not because of NASA, but because of private companies. The X Prize is >just one of things that is giving me confidence for the future of space >travel. > >Sometimes people give timelines of where they think space travel will be >over the next fifty years, and it normally involves the government and >NASA (i.e. by this year we will return to the moon, by that year we will >be at Mars, etc.). Instead, I'd like to offer a timeline for commercial >space endeavors: > >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism. >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism. >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research into >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing. >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon, >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining. >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first >asteroid mining. Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply enough. I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of launching an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to think of a way around.) >Private companies will lead the way to a permanent presence in space, as >long as there is money there. And we all know there is. However, >asteroid mining and the like will be easier if there is an existing >launch infrastructure, and I think this will be facilitated by space >tourism. Yes, this tourism will mainly be for the rich in the >beginning, but it doesn't matter if it helps jump start everything and >eventually we all get to go. > >I may never get to another star, and I may never go to Mars or even the >moon... but I'm pretty confident that before my life is over I will have >gotten the chance to see the Earth from space. > >Call your senator today and tell them to vote YES on H. Res. 572. This >bill (recently passed by the House) allows private U.S. companies to >send reusable launch vehicles into space. The D.O.T. will license such >companies. I think they already passed this one? >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1500" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1500 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09050 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09036 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PXTa02301 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:33 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:33 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 6:23:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be > >is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening > >between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number lets > >do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define > >performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of > >ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of > >performance based on the following divisions: > > > >LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in > >delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c) > > > >MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire > >mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec, > >total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c) > > > >HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum > >acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c) > > > >All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel, > >change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to > >decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be > >doubled). > > > >Comments or suggestions? > > > >Lee Accel of over 10 m/ss seem overkill, and painfull. Even if your going to light speed a 1 g boost isn't going to really increase your flight time. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4942" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "23:23:25" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "120" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01855 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA01848 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne2p07.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.135]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18772 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:22:46 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl From: Amanda & Adam Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:23:25 +1000 Hi Group KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > > >Hi Group, > > > >David Levine wrote: > > > >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I > >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > >> next). Will it be possible or not? > >> > > > >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching > >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital > >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to > >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the > >current state of space who can blame me? > > A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not > geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric > military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to > drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current > tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable. Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it could get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times more they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses CH4/LOX but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp ~ +600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the neighbours getting such technology, can we? With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super-fuel mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space would really happen... > > > Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic > planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it just like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in diffusion. As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found roving about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty or clayey. > > > >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book > >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rusting > > >around the US. > > Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with the Shuttles and the old Saturns. > > Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish > >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. > > Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also > I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it > would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of > anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced magnetic materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy! > > > Also the radiation levels are real bad. Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in quantity - and no shielding stops them. > > > Kelly > > > > >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR? > > > >Adam Still asking guys! As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even more so for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease. If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. So I think the threat is overblown. Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we are to any exobiological entities. Adam From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1217" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Engine Parameters" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1217 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13188 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13176 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2IGDa08737 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 10:53:44 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Nels, > > > >> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > >> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > >> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > >> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > >> continue with the idea of manned missions.... > > > >MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or > >vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs, > >most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9 > >g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum > >design load. > > > >As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec > >(1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand > >version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume > >that is why you wrote the m/ss? > > > >Lee > Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there any sooner, you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more during boost. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4825" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4825 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13269 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13263 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGFa02302 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2e6f3a10.3620eea5@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >[...] >> >Ad. 1: Propulsion >> >----------------- >> >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough >> >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible >> >from our perspective, namely: >> >- fusion rocket; >> >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); >> >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). >> >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, >> >a prototype build and tested in space. >> >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur >> >in the foreseable future. >> >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none.> > >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust >still wait for breaktroughs. We don't actually need sustained, and certainly thats not a major breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline, but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive would get funding in the next few decades. >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers - >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it >highly impractical, if at all possible to build >and keep in operation for tens of years. Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it. >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question >of efficiency, but not only). Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't change much. >The question of scale is important - for interstellar >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now, >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work. Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs. >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion... > > >> Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat , >> now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost >> interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors. >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. >> >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches. That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems. >> >Ad. 2: Infrastructure >> >--------------------- >[...] >> >> >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, >> >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, >> >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years >> >is very, very low. >> >> We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never >> did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then >> Apollo didn't make any sence eiather. >> >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly): >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik). >And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political). >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts, >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo >was promptly wasted. Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable booster concept. >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen, >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology >power step. >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years. Agreed. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1132" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1132 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13229 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13217 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IVPa22052 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 4:56:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon > >> it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of > >> contact with a solid object. > >> > > > >Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is > >equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact > >weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the > >plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying. > > > >The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet > >ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is. > > > >Lee If you really need to do super boost for a while you can float someone in a fero fluid liguid. Like the clear liguid they fill premees lungs with so they can "breath" until their lungs can handel air. Might need a bit of resporator help but they tested rats in something like that up to 200 G's. One day ship time at that rate and you'ld be near light speed. So can we drop the idea of ionizing frogs? ;) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4882" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4882 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13203 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13194 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WMOa18750 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> > As far as I know, still only on paper. >> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by >> > actual fusion reaction? >> >> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions >> and verified the energy output. >> >Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy >balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in the '80's eaither. >> In other words, the technology has been proven - the >> actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper. >> >> > Ditto. >> > And what about the antimatter factory? >> > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter >> > in several million years, counting optimistically... >> > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter >> > for years on? >> >> The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and >> AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be >> able to produce within the next twenty years. >> >But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight, >not a single ICAN spacecraft. > >> Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested >> >The current containers can store only picograms or even less >of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter), >and can store the antiprotons only for few days >(they slowly annihilate inside...). > >Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years >without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods >and technology. Here we agree! >> (they drove around the U.S. with the >> storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I >> guess it worked.) >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time >it will be possible... >Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter >on U.S. highways? I doubt that. Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too. >>>>===== > >> > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet >> > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will >> > be either inhabitable, or deadly. >> >> The only way to find out is to go. >> >Exactly. Almost. >I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth. >I am in no way against going to find out. > > >> Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets, >> I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for >> sheep...and sheep herders. >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil. >> > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, >> > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. >> > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction >> > than help. >> >> Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc >> Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I. >> >I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs). >However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding >a "habitable" planet around another star. >At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet >will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there >within the life of this generation. Agreed >It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside >Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most) >of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly >habitable planet around another star may stir some public >interest, not earlier. Might be a big thing to the spacer, but to the Earth developed pop it will be a noventy. But not a big event. > >I see that I must add a proper disclaimer: >------------------------------------------ >I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think. >My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved >and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that >all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately) >may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence >where a call to arms seems more appropriate. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2559" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2559 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13236 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA13222 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HLEa02317 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >[...] >> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing >> >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate >> >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System. >> >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible >> >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich >> >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private >> >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here. >> >The Mars Society awaits us... >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization. >> >Possibly, but you must start from something. >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me. But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space. >> >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. >> >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even >> >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for >> >> one thing - a new chance on a new world. >> >> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one- way... >> >> Not likely. ;) >> >Not likely what? That it will settle our perennial quarrel. > >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team >> and abondon them there to die. >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda! >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not >to understand that! >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-)) Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever after the missions over. ;) >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on >> Earthly colonization projects. >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, >interplanetary-space society. Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2210" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2210 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13278 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13268 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5ABGa04133; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 9:43:54 PM, you wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from >> microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and >> disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on our >> boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our >> favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window. > >I assume the existance of non-antiobiotic treatments, such as >nanotechnology. Can't assume nano, even if you could, if were that modified why bother with a planet. Also our microbe would be as likely to decimate the local eco-sphere. >> >> Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why god >> cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was the >> euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before >> evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied >> vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was >> among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino source. >> We're talking about total historic isolation. > >If we are dealing with a sentient civilization, then we will have to >deal with infection in a big way. If not, it shouldn't be too much of a >problem. Most of the problems were caused by viruses and bacteria >specifically evolved to attack humans...notice, many bacteriums that >attack human do not attack other lifeforms on earth. Some do some don't. Some bacteria and fungi eat anything from us to wood. As long as they like wet protean based organisms were probably fair game. >Therefore, with two >different planets and two different ecosystems, the problem should not >be so severe. The indians were different, granted, but also human. We >will likely be quite different from the ecosystem of another world. >Bacteria may still cause trouble, but probably nothing we cannot combat. Our chemistry's will be the same (otherwise we wouldn't have called it a Earth like world) so the bacterias biochem should work on us, but our immues system probably won't. > >Kyle R. Mcallister Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1970" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "01:46:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "starship-design: Re: Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: Bugs" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1970 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA12667 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 DAA12657 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem2402.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.137.98]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04763 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:19:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981012014601.0068b0a8@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:46:01 +0100 Adam, >As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien >biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to >colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even >more so for pathogens. Toxins are chemicals, while their presence eventually will cripple the host it are virii, bacteria and larger organisms that are considered the initial cause. >I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too >far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the >one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Yes, children's diseases like measles, pox and mumps are all viral diseases. Virii are the least likely ones to attack us, since they need compatible DNA. Many virii are bound to a single species. >Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with >ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular >homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to >be documented as causing disease. Hmmm, as far as I've heard, you are unlikely to spend a month in the jungle to get a bunch of parasites like bacteria but also larger organisms. You may not die from them, but that's likely because we've been battling them during our evolution. >If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and >what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to >encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling >up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. Not so long ago I heard a story from a fisherman who stinged himself with a fish hook. After a few hours he developed severe fever. He merely made it in time to a hospital, otherwise he would have died from it. (Antibiotics onboard likely could have helped him in an earlier stage though.) >So I think the threat is overblown. Not so sure. Timothy From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1261" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:53:02" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1261 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23716 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA23700 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne4p39.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.39]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA28453 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:52:29 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3621ED9D.9AC55D1E@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl From: Amanda & Adam Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:53:02 +1000 Hi Group, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > > >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization > >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on > >> Earthly colonization projects. > >> > >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, > >interplanetary-space society. > > Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new laws > > of society, culture, psychology, or economics. You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable that we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading" becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is well advanced. Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that science is dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the same applies to all the sciences. > > > > > >-- Zenon > > Kelly Adam From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1492" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "09:41:56" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: YES, we might do it." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1492 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12830 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA12815 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:42:03 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:41:56 -0400 > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM > Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism. > >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism. > >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research > into > >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing. > >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon, > >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining. > >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first > >asteroid mining. > > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply > enough. > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of > launching > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to > think of a > way around.) > > > I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future. Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest customers might not be on the Earth. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:18 1998 Content-Length: 4942 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4942" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "23:23:25" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "120" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01855 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA01848 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne2p07.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.135]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18772 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:22:46 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl From: Amanda & Adam Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:23:25 +1000 Hi Group KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > > >Hi Group, > > > >David Levine wrote: > > > >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned > >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, > >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically > >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I > >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that > >> next). Will it be possible or not? > >> > > > >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching > >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital > >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to > >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the > >current state of space who can blame me? > > A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not > geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric > military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to > drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current > tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable. Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it could get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times more they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses CH4/LOX but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp ~ +600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the neighbours getting such technology, can we? With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super-fuel mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space would really happen... > > > Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic > planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it just like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in diffusion. As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found roving about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty or clayey. > > > >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book > >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rusting > > >around the US. > > Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with the Shuttles and the old Saturns. > > Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish > >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. > > Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also > I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it > would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of > anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced magnetic materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy! > > > Also the radiation levels are real bad. Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in quantity - and no shielding stops them. > > > Kelly > > > > >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR? > > > >Adam Still asking guys! As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even more so for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease. If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. So I think the threat is overblown. Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we are to any exobiological entities. Adam From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:19 1998 Content-Length: 1217 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1217" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Engine Parameters" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1217 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13188 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13176 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2IGDa08737 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 10:53:44 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Nels, > > > >> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is > >> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine > >> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can > >> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we > >> continue with the idea of manned missions.... > > > >MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or > >vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs, > >most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9 > >g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum > >design load. > > > >As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec > >(1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand > >version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume > >that is why you wrote the m/ss? > > > >Lee > Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there any sooner, you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more during boost. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:21 1998 Content-Length: 4825 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4825" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4825 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13269 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13263 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGFa02302 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2e6f3a10.3620eea5@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >[...] >> >Ad. 1: Propulsion >> >----------------- >> >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough >> >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible >> >from our perspective, namely: >> >- fusion rocket; >> >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered); >> >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory). >> >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed, >> >a prototype build and tested in space. >> >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur >> >in the foreseable future. >> >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none.> > >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust >still wait for breaktroughs. We don't actually need sustained, and certainly thats not a major breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline, but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive would get funding in the next few decades. >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers - >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it >highly impractical, if at all possible to build >and keep in operation for tens of years. Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it. >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question >of efficiency, but not only). Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't change much. >The question of scale is important - for interstellar >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now, >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work. Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs. >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion... > > >> Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat , >> now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost >> interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors. >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. >> >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches. That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems. >> >Ad. 2: Infrastructure >> >--------------------- >[...] >> >> >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically, >> >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space, >> >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years >> >is very, very low. >> >> We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never >> did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then >> Apollo didn't make any sence eiather. >> >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly): >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik). >And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political). >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts, >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo >was promptly wasted. Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable booster concept. >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen, >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology >power step. >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years. Agreed. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:22 1998 Content-Length: 1132 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1132" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1132 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13229 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13217 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IVPa22052 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 4:56:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon > >> it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of > >> contact with a solid object. > >> > > > >Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is > >equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact > >weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the > >plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying. > > > >The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet > >ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is. > > > >Lee If you really need to do super boost for a while you can float someone in a fero fluid liguid. Like the clear liguid they fill premees lungs with so they can "breath" until their lungs can handel air. Might need a bit of resporator help but they tested rats in something like that up to 200 G's. One day ship time at that rate and you'ld be near light speed. So can we drop the idea of ionizing frogs? ;) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:23 1998 Content-Length: 4882 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4882" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4882 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13203 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13194 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WMOa18750 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> > As far as I know, still only on paper. >> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by >> > actual fusion reaction? >> >> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions >> and verified the energy output. >> >Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy >balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in the '80's eaither. >> In other words, the technology has been proven - the >> actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper. >> >> > Ditto. >> > And what about the antimatter factory? >> > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter >> > in several million years, counting optimistically... >> > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter >> > for years on? >> >> The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and >> AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be >> able to produce within the next twenty years. >> >But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight, >not a single ICAN spacecraft. > >> Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested >> >The current containers can store only picograms or even less >of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter), >and can store the antiprotons only for few days >(they slowly annihilate inside...). > >Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years >without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods >and technology. Here we agree! >> (they drove around the U.S. with the >> storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I >> guess it worked.) >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time >it will be possible... >Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter >on U.S. highways? I doubt that. Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too. >>>>===== > >> > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet >> > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will >> > be either inhabitable, or deadly. >> >> The only way to find out is to go. >> >Exactly. Almost. >I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth. >I am in no way against going to find out. > > >> Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets, >> I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for >> sheep...and sheep herders. >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil. >> > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much, >> > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly. >> > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction >> > than help. >> >> Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc >> Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I. >> >I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs). >However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding >a "habitable" planet around another star. >At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet >will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there >within the life of this generation. Agreed >It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside >Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most) >of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly >habitable planet around another star may stir some public >interest, not earlier. Might be a big thing to the spacer, but to the Earth developed pop it will be a noventy. But not a big event. > >I see that I must add a proper disclaimer: >------------------------------------------ >I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think. >My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved >and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that >all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately) >may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence >where a call to arms seems more appropriate. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:24 1998 Content-Length: 2559 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2559" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2559 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13236 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA13222 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HLEa02317 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 EDT In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >[...] >> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing >> >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate >> >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System. >> >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible >> >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich >> >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private >> >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here. >> >The Mars Society awaits us... >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization. >> >Possibly, but you must start from something. >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me. But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space. >> >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets. >> >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even >> >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for >> >> one thing - a new chance on a new world. >> >> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one- way... >> >> Not likely. ;) >> >Not likely what? That it will settle our perennial quarrel. > >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team >> and abondon them there to die. >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda! >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not >to understand that! >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-)) Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever after the missions over. ;) >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on >> Earthly colonization projects. >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, >interplanetary-space society. Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:25 1998 Content-Length: 2210 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2210" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2210 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13278 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13268 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5ABGa04133; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against. Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 EDT In a message dated 10/8/98 9:43:54 PM, you wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from >> microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and >> disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on our >> boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our >> favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window. > >I assume the existance of non-antiobiotic treatments, such as >nanotechnology. Can't assume nano, even if you could, if were that modified why bother with a planet. Also our microbe would be as likely to decimate the local eco-sphere. >> >> Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why god >> cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was the >> euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before >> evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied >> vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was >> among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino source. >> We're talking about total historic isolation. > >If we are dealing with a sentient civilization, then we will have to >deal with infection in a big way. If not, it shouldn't be too much of a >problem. Most of the problems were caused by viruses and bacteria >specifically evolved to attack humans...notice, many bacteriums that >attack human do not attack other lifeforms on earth. Some do some don't. Some bacteria and fungi eat anything from us to wood. As long as they like wet protean based organisms were probably fair game. >Therefore, with two >different planets and two different ecosystems, the problem should not >be so severe. The indians were different, granted, but also human. We >will likely be quite different from the ecosystem of another world. >Bacteria may still cause trouble, but probably nothing we cannot combat. Our chemistry's will be the same (otherwise we wouldn't have called it a Earth like world) so the bacterias biochem should work on us, but our immues system probably won't. > >Kyle R. Mcallister Kelly From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:29 1998 Content-Length: 1970 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1970" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "01:46:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "starship-design: Re: Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: Bugs" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1970 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA12667 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 DAA12657 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem2402.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.137.98]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04763 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:19:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981012014601.0068b0a8@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:46:01 +0100 Adam, >As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien >biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to >colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even >more so for pathogens. Toxins are chemicals, while their presence eventually will cripple the host it are virii, bacteria and larger organisms that are considered the initial cause. >I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too >far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the >one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Yes, children's diseases like measles, pox and mumps are all viral diseases. Virii are the least likely ones to attack us, since they need compatible DNA. Many virii are bound to a single species. >Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with >ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular >homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to >be documented as causing disease. Hmmm, as far as I've heard, you are unlikely to spend a month in the jungle to get a bunch of parasites like bacteria but also larger organisms. You may not die from them, but that's likely because we've been battling them during our evolution. >If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and >what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to >encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling >up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. Not so long ago I heard a story from a fisherman who stinged himself with a fish hook. After a few hours he developed severe fever. He merely made it in time to a hospital, otherwise he would have died from it. (Antibiotics onboard likely could have helped him in an earlier stage though.) >So I think the threat is overblown. Not so sure. Timothy From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:33 1998 Content-Length: 1261 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1261" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:53:02" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1261 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23716 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA23700 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne4p39.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.39]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA28453 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:52:29 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3621ED9D.9AC55D1E@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl From: Amanda & Adam Crowl Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:53:02 +1000 Hi Group, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > > >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization > >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on > >> Earthly colonization projects. > >> > >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, > >interplanetary-space society. > > Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new laws > > of society, culture, psychology, or economics. You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable that we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading" becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is well advanced. Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that science is dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the same applies to all the sciences. > > > > > >-- Zenon > > Kelly Adam From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:33 1998 Content-Length: 1492 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1492" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "09:41:56" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: YES, we might do it." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1492 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12830 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA12815 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:42:03 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:41:56 -0400 > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM > Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism. > >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism. > >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research > into > >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing. > >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon, > >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining. > >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first > >asteroid mining. > > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply > enough. > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of > launching > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to > think of a > way around.) > > > I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future. Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest customers might not be on the Earth. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7761" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "227" "starship-design: Fwd: Florida Today ISS artical" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7761 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11510 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA11494 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ROIa02316; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:28 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <130e7046.3622c42c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_908248108_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Florida Today ISS artical Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:28 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_908248108_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248108@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII FYI --part0_908248108_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248108@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (rly-ya01.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.193]) by air-ya04.mx.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:58:34 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA06862 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:33 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA08717 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA08699 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130870; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:59:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:13 -0500 Message-ID: <00130870.C21254@udlp.com> Subject: Florida Today ISS artical To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit For Oct. 7, 1998 Goldin: NASA needs Russian bailout bucks or station could be history By Larry Wheeler FLORIDA TODAY WASHINGTON - If the White House and Congress don't give NASA money to bail out its Russian partners, it will be time to pull the plug on the $40 billion International Space Staion, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin said Wednesday. Goldin's startling comment came under pressure from angry lawmakers during a hastily arranged hearing to explore NASA's request for an additional $1.2 billion for the planned outpost. "If we cannot fund this properly because of the budget deal, then maybe we ought to cancel the space station," said Goldin in response to pointed questions by Republican and Democratic members of the House Science Committee. "I would say this project will have to be terminated unless there is a commitment by the government that we have to give it the resources we need." In an unusual display of candor, Goldin acknowledged the titanic difficulties posed by the project pushed him to the brink of resignation but he decided against it. With just days left until Congress adjourns, lawmakers could barely contain their hostility toward the Clinton administration and NASA. "It is not a mere coincidence that the administration waited until the last and busiest week of this Congress to propose another bailout of Russia," said House Science Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis. "The administration is backing us into a corner and setting up a confrontation that could undermine all of the good things our space program has accomplished." Sensenbrenner accused the Clinton administration of lying to Congress four years ago when it promised that Russia would be a helpful addition to the station partnership and would not be placed in the "critical path" leading to construction and development of the research platform. However, just the opposite has occurred. NASA has been whipsawed and crippled by its reliance on the Russian government to fund essential elements of the station, Sensenbrenner and other lawmakers said. NASA already has paid Russia $472 million for access to its Mir space station and $210 million to build the first piece of station hardware currently scheduled to launch Nov. 20. Now, the agency is asking for at least $660 million to buy hardware, launch services and other goods Russia will not be able to provide on its own. The agency also may be requesting an additional $600 million in future years to build U.S. launch and orbit components that will replace equipment Russia originally had promised to deliver. Where the money will come from was not settled at Wednesday's hearing. The House Science Committee has no jurisdiction over NASA spending. The panel can pass authorizing legislation setting out spending levels for certain programs, but it is the Appropriations Committee that holds the purse strings. Tuesday, the House passed the annual appropriations bill containing NASA's budget for fiscal 1999, which started Oct. 1. The space agency is to receive $13.6 billion. The amount reflects the Clinton administration's request but does not include Russian bail out funds. Despite the vast uncertainties about funding, Goldin confirmed it is still his intention to launch the first Russian-built piece of station hardware in November to be followed Dec. 3 by shuttle Endeavour with a connecting node. "We are go for launch in November and December," said Goldin. NASA's desire to launch in the face of so many unknowns is irresponsible, said James Oberg, a former shuttle engineer who is now a space industry consultant and was called to appear before the Science Committee along with Goldin. "The launch of the (the first station component) under these conditions is the longest Hail Mary pass in history," said Oberg. Unlike the Apollo and shuttle programs - large NASA projects that also faced schedule slips, cost overruns and last-minute changes - the station's constantly changing status is far more threatening, Oberg warned. "The space station ducks aren't in a row, and they don't stay in a row," he said. "Chasing ducks is something we should not be doing two months before launch." Judyth Twigg, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, cast doubt on NASA's plan to send more money to Russia. The issue with Russia isn't money, said Twigg who is an expert on the Russian space industry. The former Soviet space industry has been so degraded by years of neglect, a short-term infusion of cash isn't likely to restore its health, she said. "The events of the last decade have produced degradation of both operational and industrial capability, to the point that even a substantial infusion of new funding could not renew previous levels of activity in the short or medium term," Twigg said. "In other words, money is a necessary, but not a sufficient, short-term fix." Despite assurances from Goldin that new funds would be narrowly targeted and closely monitored, Sensenbrenner said he would be reluctant to authorize such spending. He then offered Goldin and the Clinton administration an ultimatum: "If we don't see some willingness to meet Congress in the middle and some acceptance of reality from the White House soon, then I plan to spend my time working with the other members of this committee and drafting legislation for the next Congress that will put an end to this problem, one way or another. "My colleagues and I may find a way to do that and keep Russia in the program. We might not." --part0_908248108_boundary-- From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["17607" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "501" "starship-design: Fwd: James Oberg ISS statement" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 17607 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11515 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11495 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JPSa17824; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:36 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <2d95a0b9.3622c434@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_908248117_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: James Oberg ISS statement Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:36 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_908248117_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248117@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII FYI --part0_908248117_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248117@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (rly-ya03.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.195]) by air-ya02.mx.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:49:31 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA27627 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:49:30 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07461 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:49:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07452 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:49:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130800; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:50:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:48:12 -0500 Message-ID: <00130800.C21254@udlp.com> Subject: James Oberg ISS statement To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit October 7, 1998 10:00 am - 12:00 noon 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. OPENING STATEMENT James Oberg Good morning. I am pleased to be able to raise some independent issues about the Russian space partnership for the International Space Station. I want to address the following points: -- Russia's inability to fulfill its promises is NOT due to any temporary conditions which will easily go away; -- as we get closer to first launch, the wobbly assembly strategy is a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong; -- based on recent actual Russian spacecraft experience, alarm bells should be ringing about the reliability of the latest promises that the Service Module is "almost finished" and nearly ready to fly; -- NASA overestimates the effectiveness of massive cash infusions into the Russian space industry, in part because of deliberate blindness towards ample evidence of corruption; -- recent Russian attempts to prolong the life of Mir for another two or more years would violate promises to NASA and would shatter any hope of adequate Russian launch support for ISS; -- every promised benefit of bringing on the Russians as ISS partners has collapsed, including the idea of making the project faster and better and cheaper, and the hope that it would forestall the flow of Russian missile technology into rogue states; -- the rush to launch the first elements six weeks from now is an attempt to prevent proper independent assessment of the new situation, and amounts to holding the future of the US space program hostage to continuing a failed strategy. After consistently being wrong about Russia's ability to fulfill its space promises, NASA still clings to the hope that the problem with our relationship is only superficial, only temporary, and that there's light at the end of the tunnel. In previous years, we were told that full financing would surely come after the end of the Chechen War, or after the presidential runoffs, or after the presidential elections, or after this or that new treaty or new summit meeting or new Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission session. And it never, ever did. But the lack of Russian government funding for ISS is not the result of the current financial crisis, as has been claimed. It is instead the policy set more than a year ago when the Russian Space Agency was told to take bank loans and sell off its assets to obtain required funds. The Russian government has not simply NOT paid the required money, it has demanded -- incredibly -- that IT receive money FROM the Russian Space Agency in the form of value-added taxes ("delivery taxes") on space hardware that the Russian Space Agency has somehow managed to fund. Certainly, we know from history that all major new space projects prove more difficult than expected. But there is a fundamental difference between what it looked like as we approached the first flight of Apollo, or Skylab, or Shuttle, and the way things are shaping up as we approach the International Space Station. For those previous programs, the complexities and difficulties often required major adjustments in design or schedules. But because of the quality of technological management, those difficulties were confronted and solved well in advance of the final countdowns. For example, although the space shuttle marched in place for almost two years at the Launch Minus Twelve Months point, once all the pieces fell into place those last months proceeded almost without pause toward a successful launch. But for ISS, the closer we seem to get to launch, the more the pieces are falling apart, the greater the uncertainty is about critical downstream support. This should tell us something about the technological and management inadequacies that must be repaired before committing any hardware to flight. Using the wrong metrics is another source of problems. For example, measuring the completion of spacecraft in general, and of the Service Module in particular, by weight of installed hardware is silly. Two years ago we were told the module was 90% complete, now it's supposed to be 98% complete with only a few systems missing. But as NASA has been told, those are often critical systems from contractors that in some instances no longer even manufacture such hardware (for example, the Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator, which caused the near-fatal fire in February 1997 for which the Russians have STILL not provided NASA the final accident report). There remains a great deal of assembly work to be done that remains out of sight and out of mind for NASA. And software, one of the most notorious "long poles" in the ISS tent, weighs nothing, so its impact on work-yet-to-be-done gets slighted in this measurement scheme. Compare these claims with that from a manager of the ill- fated "Lewis" spacecraft who testified that the vehicle was 95% complete, even before a contract had been signed to produce the flight software. Let's also not judge the Service Module's likely completion process by the smooth schedule we saw for the FGB. That module was amply funded and was built by a healthy, highly motivated organization. But things are different for the Service Module. A better analogy for a highly complex Russian spacecraft being built by a bankrupt space organization would be the Mars-96 probe. Two years ago, after years of delay, of cutting corners, of appeals for foreign financial support, of corruption scandals, and finally of frantic work to meet an interplanetary launch window, this most sophisticated ever Russian spacecraft was launched towards Mars, and promptly failed. By the way, it's interesting to note how international diplomacy has interfered with accurate assessments of safety issues in this case (as in others). To this day, space officials in Moscow and Washington BOTH prefer to believe that the off-course probe and its eighteen plutonium batteries fell harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean, when the best evidence is that the wreckage is on dry ground in the Andes Mountains near the Chile-Bolivia border. Pretending otherwise is an abdication of responsibility to the health of the local population -- but it's convenient, and doesn't threaten to embarrass the Russians. More relevant to the Service Module's future, and to the future of the ISS, the Mars-96 accident investigation team was led by the same Professor Utkin who assists the Stafford Commission on assessing the safety of Russian spacecraft. After months of work, Utkin's team reportedly failed to find ANY reason for Mars-96 to have failed, even with the knowledge that it already HAD failed. This does not encourage our hope that these same experts can accurately assess the future reliability of the Service Module, now being assembled under conditions just as bad as those which doomed Mars-96. There are plenty of other things about our Russian partners that NASA has simply not wanted to see, or has even wanted NOT to see. For example, NASA has made certain that evidence of corruption within the Russian space industry would not distract its decision makers. Regarding these notorious cosmonaut mansions at Star City -- which some White House experts still blindly dismiss as merely "allegations" -- within NASA it was a strict rule NOT to see or mention them. When one NASA official was outraged enough to describe them in a trip report, he was ordered to rewrite and resubmit the report after deleting mention of the mansions. Other NASA workers at Star City have told me that it was made clear to them all that any overt interest in these houses would be severely "career limiting". Such a policy makes it easier for higher officials to act surprised and incredulous when confronted with independent evidence for such diversion of funds. Another potential surprise is connected with the fate of the Mir space station. Fortified with spare parts ferried up on NASA shuttles, the Mir has flown on recently with less visible troubles than last year. But since the Russians can only build about five or six Soyuz and Progress vehicles, the kind which support Mir and which will support the ISS, any continuation of Mir beyond next year threatens to divert irreplaceable resources from ISS. So under intense NASA pressure, the Russians agreed to de-orbit the Mir in June 1999. But many Russian space officials objected to this capitulation to NASA interests and advocated keeping Mir open for at least two years more -- which would require numerous additional Soyuz and Progress support flights. In recent weeks, these wishes have been transformed into active negotiations with Western financiers to prolong Mir's lifetime. Yuri Maslyukov, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and a protégé of the new prime minister Gennadiy Primakov, has reportedly led this effort, with support from space-hopping Kremlin aide Yuriy Baturin and from Energia Corporation officials such as V. Nikitskiy and Valeriy Ryumin (NASA generously gave Ryumin a courtesy Mir visit flight on a shuttle last June -- he came back determined to repudiate Russian promises about terminating Mir). Further, some recent repair work on Mir doesn't seem to make much sense except as preparation for extending its lifetime beyond the promised termination date. Now, here's the rub. The latest ISS manifest released last week by NASA shows nine Soyuz and Progress flights by Russia in the year 2000 (plus a tenth Soyuz launch of a modified Progress carrying an ISS module), all to ISS. So if there is ANY extension of Mir's lifetime to 2000 and beyond, the new NASA plans must go the way of all previous plans, onto the scrap heap. Let's step further back and view the big picture. It's clear that every promise made for the value of the Russian partnership when NASA sold the idea to the White House back in 1993 has collapsed. The idea that it would be quicker and cheaper was incredible to experts even in 1993, to everyone, that is, but NASA experts. Meanwhile, NASA continues to use creative bookkeeping to conceal the billions of dollars of extra costs associated with the Russian partnership. One such cost is what I call the "Russian Access Tax" that the US will have to pay on EVERY shuttle launch to carry cargo to an orbit northerly enough for the Russians to reach -- a loss of a large fraction of the shuttle's cargo carrying capacity. Now, it's true NASA has enhanced this capacity to make up for these losses, but those same improvements could also be applied to more convenient orbits as well. In practical terms, this means that four shuttle flights are required to carry the same cargo to the "Russian orbit" that three flights could carry to a more efficient orbit. Over the life of the ISS, with more than a hundred shuttle flights expected, about a quarter of them -- ten billion dollars worth or more -- are required merely to allow the Russians to be partners. Also, the idea that pouring money into the Russian space industry could prevent 'missile mischief' with rogue states has turned out to be another illusion. Hundreds of thousands of rocket engineers in Russia have been laid off over the past decade (particularly from military missile plants) and there never were more than a few hundred free-lance employment opportunities overseas anyway. The abundance of available Russian rocket experts for hire abroad is shown by the relatively low price they can demand -- according to Russian journalist Evgeniya Albats, about $200 cash per month. And that doesn't even count full-scale contracts with Russian space corporations. And how about all of the wonderfully valuable "Russian space experience" that we hear lip service to? NASA has shown instead that it has to learn things again on its own, such as on Shuttle-Mir, which caught NASA by surprise time and time again. And in the end, we must ask, if Russia's experience with space stations was so valuable to NASA, why is NASA again in such a space station mess? What is to be done now? I suggest that instead of clinging reflexively to remnants of a strategy which is growing more and more threatened at many points, we concentrate on the important goal of getting a fully outfitted US Lab module operational as soon as possible. Past plans and past expenditures are, in the phrase used by pilots, "runway behind us". We have to get from where we are NOW to where we want to be. Meanwhile, putting the FGB and US Node into orbit now, before a serious reevaluation of the program can be carried out, is an attempt to hold the entire US manned space program hostage to a failed strategy. The "rush" is on to prevent deliberative investigation of the changed circumstances vis-a-vis Russia. There are symbolic, stylistic, and substantive steps that can be taken. Symbolically, if the Russians are selling us all their research time for the next few years, and it's US money which is keeping the entire project on track, the station crew commanders for this phase should all be Americans. For flight two and four, cosmonauts had been designated to be in command. Under the changed circumstances, that decision should be changed. In terms of style, NASA has proven itself incapable of learning from anyone else's experience with dealing with Russian partners, and even has great difficulty getting its own internal experience to the people who need it. This is a problem with leadership. If there are people at NASA with an unbroken track record of being wrong about Russian developments, the obvious fix is to replace them. In terms of substance, the mindless momentum toward an FGB/Node launch based on the same illusory hopes for future Russian support, hopes that have been dashed year after year after year, should be reconsidered, if not by NASA than by those who can influence NASA. There should be an immediate independent assessment of the actual cost of delaying the FGB/Node launch by up to six months. Experience should have taught us that before committing hardware to space flight -- a very hostile place full of unpleasant surprises -- we should minimize surprises back on Earth. At the very least, the Service Module and OTHER downstream Russian support hardware must be certified "on track" by some independent evaluation, and the threat of Mir-related diversions must be ended, most reliably by the termination of that program. Such steps could take several months. Until such steps are taken, I consider it foolhardy to deliberately enhance programmatic risk -- and our vulnerability to future blackmail -- by launching the first elements. At the same time, a credible, independent assessment must finally be made of the "no-Russian" option. We've heard the official claims that it would cost billions more, but those claims are from people who are overlooking billions and billions of dollars of operational expenses which are required for -- and only for -- keeping the Russians aboard. These same experts have consistently misjudged schedule and cost and quality benefits attributed to Russian participation, and it seems to me they deserve no further credibility from the public and from Congress. Until we take such reality-based steps, I am concerned that NASA's long record of being repeatedly caught by surprise by new Russian problems will continue unbroken into the next century, at immense cost to the American space program and to the hopes of all of us who wish it to succeed. Thank you for this opportunity to present these ideas. I am grateful to many, many dedicated and experienced space engineers both inside and outside of the space station program for sharing their concerns and suggestions with me, and I have attempted to be their spokesman on these issues. --part0_908248117_boundary-- From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["482" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:02" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 482 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11746 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11710 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VLVRa17798; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:02 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <7b48cdc2.3622c44e@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:02 EDT In a message dated 10/10/98 7:05:55 PM, you wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> > >> Fisherman? Technicaly a fishing camp isn't a colony, also the > >> fishermen came > >> from the colony. > >> > > > >No a fishing camp isn't a colony, its a camp. The camp came first then the > >colony. The fisherman came to the Grand Banks before most of the colonists > >did. > > > >Lee Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and antarctic buy euros, but thats did start a colony? Kelly From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1952" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:07" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1952 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11583 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11571 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IOUa03785 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:07 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <83536781.3622c453@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:07 EDT In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >Hi Group, > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization >> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on >> >> Earthly colonization projects. >> >> >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, >> >interplanetary-space society. >> >> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new laws >> >> of society, culture, psychology, or economics. > >You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful >societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable that >we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading" >becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is well >advanced. No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that drive them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture, psychology, or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would be like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make it up in volume. >Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that science >is >dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by >trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to >agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the same >applies to all the sciences. Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong. Neutons laws of gravity still work fine. >> > >> >-- Zenon >> >> Kelly > >Adam Kelly From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9060" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "188" "starship-design: Fwd: James Sensenbrenner iss statements" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9060 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11528 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11507 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AIJa02328; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <1046b1c8.3622c43a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_908248123_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, JohnFrance@aol.com, MARK.A.JENSEN@cpmx.mail.saic.com, moschleg@erols.com, schlegel@rmc1.crocker.com, Sdudley6@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: James Sensenbrenner iss statements Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:42 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_908248123_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248123@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII FYI --part0_908248123_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248123@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:52:33 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA28865 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:52:31 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07940 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07933 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130831; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:53:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:50:43 -0500 Message-ID: <00130831.C21254@udlp.com> Subject: James Sensenbrenner iss statements To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit NASA Watch United States House of Representatives Committee on Science F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman George E. Brown, Jr., California, Ranking Democrat www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm October 7, 1998 Press Contacts: Jennifer Siciliano (Jennifer.Siciliano@mail.house.gov) Mike Catanzaro (Michael.Catanzaro@mail.house.gov) (202) 225-4275 SENSENBRENNER REBUKES ADMINISTRATION FOR SPACE STATION FAILURES The following statement was given by Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) at today's committee hearing on the International Space Station: At this Committee's first hearing in the 105th Congress, the Administration asked us to support and fund the Interim Control Module as an insurance policy against the possibility that the Russian Service Module might be delayed past its April 1998 launch date. That's right, I said the Service Module was supposed to be launched six months ago. We did what the Administration asked and supported the ICM. Congress kept its part of the bargain. But here we are again. The problem has not been fixed. Instead, it is getting worse. Two years later and the American people are still waiting for their Space Station. We are still waiting for the first element launch. We are still waiting for the Service Module. We are still waiting on the Russian government. And we are still waiting for a plan from the President to solve these problems. But, instead of a solution, the Administration is asking for a blank check. It wants to keep throwing money at the Russians. $660 million more. on top of the $472 million we paid Russia for access to Mir, on top of the $210 million we paid Russia for the FGB, on top of the tens of millions we're paying Russia for administrative support, on top of the $1.2 billion Russia has already cost the American taxpayer by failing to honor its commitments and meet schedule. What's worse is that the Administration does not have the courtesy or the courage to be up front and honest with the American people about the cost of this bailout. It won't put the $660 million bailout in writing. Instead, all the White House will let NASA talk about is the tip of the iceberg, $60 million that it wants to pay the Russians immediately. Why is that? I think it's because the White House does not want to admit that its management of our relationship with Russia is fundamentally flawed. The President promised me in writing in 1994 that we would not be dependent on the Russians to build the International Space Station. The Administration's representatives from the White House, the State Department, and NASA all came up here and repeated that falsehood for years. And now the Administration wants to stick the American taxpayer with the costs of its mistakes?just to hide the fact that it made them. It is not a mere coincidence that the Administration waited until the last and busiest week of this Congress to propose this bailout. The Administration aggressively lobbied Congress to support bringing Russia into the program. For a while you couldn't walk down the halls without tripping over someone from the White House or the State Department trying to convince you of all of the benefits for starting this partnership. But suddenly, when NASA has to pay the bill for someone else's foreign policy and budgetary failures, the White House and the State Department are nowhere to be seen. They refused to testify at this hearing, although their decisions have brought us to this point. Worse still, the Administration is now lobbying the Senate to oppose the NASA Authorization bill in order to escape accountability. A year and a half ago this Committee adopted and the House of Representatives passed a two-year authorization bill with an amendment that Mr. Brown and I wrote. We directed the Administration to create the contingency plan that it promised it already had and tried to establish a decision tree that would have helped prevent our current problems. The amendment also precluded NASA from paying the Russians to do work they had already committed to perform as partners. Now, when the Senate is considering similar measures along with cost caps and timelines, NASA has pulled out all the stops to prevent passage. In doing so, NASA is attempting to thwart the desire of the American people to have accountability and sound management in government. That's treading on dangerously thin ice where I come from. I cannot go along with NASA's request to start bailing out the Russian space program. I've seen nothing since passage of the Sensenbrenner-Brown amendment that would lead me to believe that NASA, the White House, or the Russians would make good use of the money. An appearance at today's hearing by the White House and State Department would have at least sent a signal that they cared about the program and wanted to work with us towards a solution. That is why the Speaker and I sent letters to Mr. Talbott and Mr. Lew asking them to reconsider their refusals to appear. We also stated that we could not begin to consider supporting this initial $60 million reallocation without their constructive participation in the process. The plain truth is that the White House is addicted to the Russians. I'm beginning to think it doesn't care whether the Space Station gets built, so long as the Russians are happy. The problem is that our relationship with the Russian space program is fundamentally flawed and is hurting our national interest. What makes me particularly angry is that all of the talent, the creativity, the energy, and the passion that exist for space within NASA is being wasted in frantic efforts to create ad-hoc, short-term bandaids that enable the White House to indulge its addiction to Russia instead of being channeled into actually building our Space Station and opening the space frontier. We need to kick this habit. Congress has repeatedly offered a range of suggestions, each of which the White House has summarily rejected. The Administration is backing us into a corner and setting up a confrontation that could undermine all of the good things our space program has accomplished. I see only one way of avoiding it. The Administration needs to take the Russian government out of the critical path-now. Congress expected that four years ago and the Administration promised we wouldn't become dependent on Russia. It lied. Last April, the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force recommended the immediate initiation of a U.S. propulsion capability. On July 30th, NASA recommended that to the White House. Both times, the White House said no. It prefers the long-term, hidden costs of its dependence on Russia to the short term pain of biting the bullet and doing the right thing. Well, I do not. If we don't see some willingness to meet Congress in the middle and some acceptance of reality from the White House soon, then I plan to spend time working with the other members of this Committee and drafting legislation for the next Congress that will put an end to this problem, one way or the other. My colleagues and I may find a way to do that and keep Russia in the program. We might not. I would prefer to work with the Administration, but we cannot keep waiting for leadership that may never come. --###-- 105-246 Return to NASA Watch --part0_908248123_boundary-- From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6389" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "192" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6389 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11598 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11592 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DHSa19215 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:12 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:12 EDT In a message dated 10/11/98 8:26:52 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >Hi Group > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: >> >> >Hi Group, >> > >> >David Levine wrote: >> > >> >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned >> >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri, >> >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically >> >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I >> >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that >> >> next). Will it be possible or not? >> >> >> > >> >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching >> >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital >> >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to >> >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the >> >current state of space who can blame me? >> >> A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not >> geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric >> military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to >> drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current >> tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable. > >Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it could >get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times more >they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses CH4/LOX >but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp ~ >+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the neighbours >getting such technology, can we? These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you don't get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy story echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators. On the other hand their are some comercial reasearch programs that are building and testing comercial launchers that could do similarly spectacular cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to operate a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty. >With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super- fuel >mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced >scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space would >really happen... > >> >> >> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic >> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. > >Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it just >like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in diffusion. >As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found roving >about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's >thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty or >clayey. That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a super- oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules. >> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book >> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rusting >> >> >around the US. >> > > >Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with the >Shuttles and the old Saturns. Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal. >> >> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish >> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. >> >> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also >> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it >> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of >> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. > >Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced magnetic >materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc >super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy! ?! Fusion needs none of those. >> >> Also the radiation levels are real bad. > >Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in quantity >- >and no shielding stops them. Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad. > >> >> >> Kelly >> >> > >> >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR? >> > >> >Adam > >Still asking guys! > >As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien >biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to >colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even more >so >for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far because >we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and disease >transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological >systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I doubt >there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely >different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease. > >If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and what >they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter - >weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for >centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of them have proven very deadly. >So I think the threat is overblown. > >Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien >lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we are >to >any exobiological entities. Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats. >Adam Kelly From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19309" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:49" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "546" "starship-design: Fwd: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 19309 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11520 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA11498 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZPIa02317; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:49 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <8db9745.3622c441@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_908248129_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:49 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_908248129_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248129@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII FYI --part0_908248129_boundary Content-ID: <0_908248129@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (rly-ya02.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.194]) by air-ya01.mail.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:06:36 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA11969 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:06:34 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id PAA09922 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:06:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id PAA09903 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:06:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 001308C8; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:07:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: <001308C8.C21254@udlp.com> Subject: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Prepared Statement on "The Administration’s Proposed Bail-Out for Russia" U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science October 7, 1998 Judyth L. Twigg Assistant Professor Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA (804)828-8051 jtwigg@saturn.vcu.edu Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify about the International Space Station. You asked that I focus my testimony on the state of the Russian space program, the health of its aerospace industry, and its ability to meet its obligations to the International Space Station program. I am testifying today as an individual, representing no government or private agency. I am employed as a full-time member of the Political Science faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University. My interests are simply as an observer of Russian politics and economics for the past 15 years, and more specifically as a student of the Soviet and now Russian defense and aerospace sector for 10 of those 15 years. Many Western observers and Russians alike have, for several years, warned of the imminent collapse of Russia's space operations. The faltering, and now clearly failed, post-Soviet reform effort has taken its toll. Attempts to create a stable ruble economy and balance the government budget have resulted in dramatic cuts of resources to the space sector, catastrophically affecting both industry and operations. The politics of democracy-building and industrial restructuring have held Russian space institutions captive to prevailing political winds, and to the uncertainties of reform processes whose only constant is their inconsistency. The common wisdom regarding Russia's difficulties in space is that the issue is money. The argument is this: their technical capability is intact, and if only the Russian government, or someone else, were to provide full and reliable funding, then Russia could rapidly resume meeting its own national goals and its international obligations. But there is ample evidence that questions the validity of that assessment. It is more likely that the events of the last decade have produced degradation of both operational and industrial capability, to the point that even a substantial infusion of new funding could not renew previous levels of activity in the short or medium term. In other words, money is a necessary, but not a sufficient, short-term fix. "Brain Drain" This is true for two reasons. One is the departure of key scientific and technical personnel, better known as the "brain drain" problem. Employment in Russia's space sector is down by almost 50% from its peak in 1990. Delays in government funding for space have meant that space institutes and enterprises routinely lay off most of their remaining employees during the summer, rehiring those still interested and available after fall financial installments have been received. By this time, the youngest, most energetic and creative members of the space industrial workforce have joined the more lucrative commercial or financial sectors, applying their talents to subjects far removed from space and decimating aerospace research and design teams which took years to train and assemble. The senior engineer who designed Russia's manned maneuvering unit, for example, is driving a cab. One Russian report indicates that more than half of the research and design personnel in the aerospace sector are now over the age of 55; about a third are 45-55 years old; and only one percent are under the age of 35. Even those who remain often spend only a few hours a day at the workplace before turning to second jobs, or to the constant hunt for food and supplies. Wages in the space production sector are only three-quarters of the national average. Vital intergenerational transfers of knowledge about space industry and operations are not systematically taking place. Neglect of Infrastructure The second reason that money cannot quickly solve Russia's problems is the ongoing decay of its material infrastructure. Russia has slashed its financing of the aerospace industry over the last decade. From 1990 to 1995 alone, Russian civilian space programs suffered government funding reductions of 80 percent, and military space programs were cut by 90 percent. In addition, the Russian government routinely does not give final approval to the current calendar year budget until mid-spring, which leaves all agencies, including military and civilian space, forced to survive on a series of month-by-month handouts based on the previous year's allocations. Lower-tier subcontractors are most affected by these payment delays, and many of them are now demanding payment in advance for delivery of goods, resulting in further production stoppages at the prime contractor level. Furthermore, state funds can be unexpectedly diverted to other uses as national emergencies arise; RSA's 1994-1995 budget reportedly suffered because of the need to pay for the war in Chechnya, and it is likely that money is currently being channeled toward politically charged payments of back wages to striking coal miners and other workers. Of course, these funding dynamics enormously complicate attempts at long-term planning and investment. The bulk of scarce government funding has gone to current operations likely to attract foreign cash, such as commercial launch activity. Funding for aerospace programs is sufficiently tight and spasmodic that pipelines for research and procurement have been stretched out almost indefinitely for the few new projects that remain; according to one Russian source, strict funding priority has been assigned to "space systems which can be activated in the near future." This emphasis on current operating costs and procurement of hardware near the end of the pipeline is most certainly taking place at the expense of investment in infrastructure and research and development. The diversion of scarce resources toward current operations and away from long-term investments carries serious long-term consequences. The cumulative impact of years of neglect has been a severely eroded research and development capability and a significant degradation of physical plant. Lack of Modernization Potential These two factors -- the loss of key personnel, and the corrosion of important infrastructure -- exacerbate another problem, the basic level of technological sophistication of the Russian space industry. Much of Russia's current exploration and use of space is made possible primarily by inertia carried over from the Soviet period, although there is evidence that even those warehoused stockpiles of products, components, and R&D are coming to an end. The Soviet aerospace industries were held captive to the same perverse incentives that plagued the rest of the Soviet economy, incentives which rewarded quantity or gross output of production rather than quality, output assortment, or technological innovation. The haphazard process of Russian industrial reform has not enabled the space industry to overcome this Soviet legacy. As a result, modernization programs which would make Russia competitive with other space-faring nations are scarce and frequently unsuccessful. Other Specific Causes of ISS Funding Delays Many analysts, both Western and Russian, have speculated on other causes of the repeated funding crises and resultant delays in space station component construction and delivery. The most obvious is simply that the Russian economy has collapsed, and fulfilling obligations to the space station project has not been, perhaps understandably, a consistently high priority. But a deeper and more nuanced look at the Russian political situation over the last several years, at both Russian domestic politics and foreign policy, provides a series of potential additional explanations. One is that the Russian government has forced the delays intentionally, either as an expression of dissatisfaction or even punishment over plans for NATO expansion, or as a tactic to delay the abandonment of the revenue-generating Mir. Another factor may be Russian political and industrial culture, which traditionally has not taken schedules and deadlines seriously. In the words of one anonymous source within the Russian space program, "The shuttle's late, every major program is late. That's the nature of the beast. I'm fascinated by this preoccupation by the American side on an exact date." Russian public opinion has not always assigned the highest priority to participation in the station. Some Russian commentators have denounced Russia's involvement in the project, fearing that the country's domestic space infrastructure will suffer as a result and fretting over the implied degradation of Russia's superpower status. Observing that, unlike the Mir follow-on which had been scheduled for lift-off in 1997, the international station will not fly over all of Russia's territory, Russian naysayers complain that the United States is getting the better part of Russian technology at bargain basement prices and that valuable design and production work is being taken away from Russia and assigned instead to Western contractors. One prominent Russian newspaper commentator recently complained, "Russian know-how will save Americans at least $10 billion and three years, but the U.S. will actually pay Russia only $400 million. Is it fair?" Another Russian analyst sounded the same theme: "We get the impression that the United States would like to use Russia as a kind of cab driver. We put the American spacecraft into orbit, and then -- good bye! They are aiming to manufacture all the special-purpose high-tech equipment themselves. If this is how things turn out, there will be little left of our high-tech industry." In other words, many Russian perceptions of the politics of the International Space Station partnership are quite different from those in the United States. Finally, the politics of the Russian budgetary process itself are important. The situation with Russian funding of its space station commitments is fundamentally political as much as it is financial. The Ministry of Economics, which controls significant government budget disbursements for space, has in recent years has been vocally hostile toward the manned space program, suggesting that there is "no coherent scientific program" for Russia's participation in the space station. This means that, without direct intervention directly from the highest levels, the regular grind of the political process may continue to result in financial problems for space industry and operations. It was precisely this kind of intervention, in the form of former Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin and the force of the Gore-Chernomyrdin partnership, that gave space station funding the infusions it has received, prompt or delayed, over the last several years. Now that Chernomyrdin is gone and two new governments have struggled with Russia's worst financial crisis since independence throughout the spring and summer of 1998, the prospects for space funding are not bright. With the International Monetary Fund insisting that the state budget be tightened before it will disburse desperately needed loans, major privatization deals for huge Russian natural resource conglomerates falling through (depriving the budget of over a billion dollars in expected revenues), and tax collections throughout the country still falling far below expectations, belts are being tightened in Russia's budget sector more than ever before. This is likely to translate into a familiar pattern: scarce rubles for the space sector will be channeled into projects with the greatest promise for short-term revenue generation, a set of priorities which is unlikely to include the International Space Station. Future Prospects The vast majority of the scientists and engineers remaining in the Russian aerospace sector are talented, creative, honest professionals. But they are trapped within an obsolete, decaying infrastructure that leaves them little room to translate their knowledge and experience into innovative, functioning products. It would take years' worth of restored political priority, resulting in full, consistent streams of funding, as well as a stable political and economic business environment within which to operate, for Russian space industry once again to develop the capacity for activity it demonstrated during the Soviet period. Until that unlikely scenario takes place, Russian space operations will continue to be plagued with the kind of accidents and mishaps that have become familiar over the last several years, and probably at an accelerating rate. Whatever activity continues will result from the marketing of Russia's space capability to paying customers, most of them non-Russian, looking for a good deal on cheap technology and manpower. In order to generate this desperately needed revenue, the Russian government will continue to allocate whatever scarce resources it can spare on space to current operations for those projects which demonstrate the best promise in attracting foreign cash. Inertia generated by Soviet-era activity -- the inherited ground support infrastructure, the use of accumulated reserves, the availability of skilled labor at low wages -- may continue to support this marketing effort. But, in essence, Russia is very close to becoming nothing but a contractor for other countries' space programs. Basic research and development, which cannot be translated into an immediately saleable product, will continue to suffer, as will long-term investment and planning for whatever uniquely Russian priorities exist in the realm of space. As this trend continues, it will become increasingly difficult for Russia to meets its obligations even to paying customers or to partners in international cooperative space endeavors. Can this disaster be reversed? The answer to that question lies in an examination of just how far Russia has come since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clifford Gaddy and Barry Ickes have recently described the Russian economy not as a functioning or even a developing market, not as capitalist or socialist, but as a new type of economy: "virtual." It earns this label because it is based almost entirely on illusion or pretense about almost every important parameter of economic activity – prices, sales, wages, taxes, and budgets. In this respect, it differs little from the practice of Soviet central planning, where prices were ad-hoc constructs, functioning as artificial accounting tools after the planners allocated resources primarily in terms of material balances, and where official data on production, inter-enterprise trade, and sales comprised a web of lies disguising widespread barter, unfulfilled quotas, overproduction of shoddy, unusable goods, and diversion of state property. Major enterprises continue literally to subtract value as part of their ongoing industrial activity, acquiring inputs through barter and other forms of non- cash exchange, hiring but not paying workers (at least not in cash), and churning out worthless end products. This dynamic is sustained by a political process still unwilling to tolerate the sudden, dramatic leaps in unemployment that would result from the closing and/or genuine restructuring of these industrial behemoths, and by direct and indirect subsidies made possible by those enterprises, mostly in the natural resources sector, which genuinely do produce value, including hard currency. This "virtual" economy cannot exist side by side with a stable, developing industrial market – it will inevitably infect it. It provides ample opportunity for rampant corruption, as recent experience has illustrated. And the Russian state cannot function effectively if it cannot find a way to tax a substantial part, if not a majority, of economic exchange taking place through barter. In other words, despite the gleaming new high-rise office towers and apartment buildings altering the landscape of downtown Moscow, despite the progress implied by a newly functioning Russian stock market, despite the proliferation of German luxury cars and cell phones among Russia’s new class of elite young businessmen – despite all of this, in important ways, Russia has not progressed very far at all since Mikhail Gorbachev took his place on the world stage in 1985. Money alone is not the solution. Bailouts from the West may, in fact, serve only to prolong the agony before Russia is forced to face the real work of significant financial and industrial restructuring. The Russian space program does not exist in a vacuum. It depends on, indeed stems from, a wide variety of supporting elements in the society surrounding it: education, industry at all levels, finance, and government. Until some rationality and stability is achieved in some or all of these areas, the trajectory of Russian space industry and operations will continue along its current path. And, unfortunately for Russia and for the rest of the world, it appears at though that rationality and stability will not be achieved in the foreseeable future. In closing, I would like to say that I am an enthusiastic proponent of manned space activity. I very much hope that the International Space Station succeeds. I also very much hope that the Russian reform effort succeeds. But there are many reasons to question whether NASA's current proposal to provide more money to Russia will further either of these goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. --part0_908248129_boundary-- From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2943" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:33:07" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "59" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2943 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06606 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA06597 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA27842 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA07306; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> References: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:07 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that drive > them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture, psychology, > or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would be > like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every > century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make it up > in volume. Considering that you don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of other cultures, Kelly, claiming that we know everything there is to know about sociology is pretty arrogant. There can easily be fundamentally new societies, cultures, psychologies, and economics because we can barely model any of these things well, and the models all have some very basic assumptions that will be valid only in an Earthly environment. We don't have anything as powerfully predictive of society as Newton's laws are predictive of mechanics. > In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > >Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that > science > >is > >dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by > >trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to > >agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the > same > >applies to all the sciences. > > Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn > anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong. > Neutons laws of gravity still work fine. There are some implicit assumptions behind life on Earth that won't be true in space. For example, on the surface of the Earth the materials needed to support life (oxygen, water, food) are basically laying around ready for anyone to take and use. A self-sustaining biosphere exists more or less independently of humans to renew these things (although humans have been interfering more and more with that ability). In space, you have to bring or make everything you'll need for life support -- air, water, and food. Any self-sustaining living environment will require labor to make or import these essentials; there won't be a self-sustaining environment that makes these things for the people who live in it without lots of work from them. On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe, because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't produce a social organization different than what has existed in history? From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["757" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "09:52:57" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 757 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA24236 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (d7kHKt99kRDCiuWTaySjRe6zSi6hC/ev@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA24228 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id JAA21386; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:52:57 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <002c01bdf3d8$51a07e40$c05931cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: Starship Design Subject: Re: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:52:57 +0200 (MET DST) On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: Lee A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein Lee, do you really agree with any of that??? Face it, many of those things are stuff which only a small percentage of human beeings have the potential to be really good at. In fact, I doubt if _ANY_ human has the capacity to be good or even average at all of those things... /Bjorn From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["386" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:17:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 386 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14098 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA14091 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p213.gnt.com [204.49.89.213]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA17897; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:24:30 -0500 Message-ID: <004a01bdf6a3$714e4920$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:17:27 -0500 Kelly, > Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there > any sooner, > you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more > during boost. Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that fast and would just get a ticket if you did. Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum speed, that why. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["569" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:17:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 569 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14117 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA14112 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p213.gnt.com [204.49.89.213]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA17892; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:24:27 -0500 Message-ID: <004901bdf6a3$6f2d8c00$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Amanda & Adam Crowl" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:17:22 -0500 Adam, VASIMR stands for something like VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetic Rocket. I may have the exact acronym translation wrong but that is the import. It use the equivalent of a super microwave tube to heat hydrogen to a plasma which is then funneled out of a magnetic nozzle. Unlike most rocket engines, this one can be "tuned" to deliver varying amounts of thrust. It is also very powerful and efficient by today's standards. NASA says it could put a crew around Mars in three months with this drive. There are full performance figures available on the web. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["330" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:57:48" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 330 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19538 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA19467 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA21253; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:04:57 -0500 Message-ID: <004d01bdf6a9$1424bda0$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7b48cdc2.3622c44e@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:57:48 -0500 > Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and > antarctic buy euros, > but thats did start a colony? Geez Kelly, What's the point? I forgot how this thread started already! I think I was trying to point out that it wasn't necessary to go whole hog with a colony at first, but I've forgotten where we started. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["668" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:57:40" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 668 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19443 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA19388 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA21246; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:04:53 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01bdf6a9$11dacda0$c05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "David Levine" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:57:40 -0500 > > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply > > enough. > > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of > > launching > > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to > > think of a > > way around.) Make the lander in orbit out of waste products. It doesn't have to be complicated or expensive. NASA has been testing these spiky balloon like things for awhile and they work well. A two hundred dollar balloon lander could put a few tons of ore on the surface every few minutes. Need to aim at someplace large like Australia's Outback, Arizona's desert or the Sahara or Gobi deserts... Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6742" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "15:52:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "166" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6742 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12599 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA12378 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA14147; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:52:30 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:52:30 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > > No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions > > > and verified the energy output. > > > > > Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy > > balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! > > ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps you should > check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the data is there. > OK, I will. But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware? > > But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight, > > not a single ICAN spacecraft. > > True, but we have to start somewhere. You will note however that the AIMSTAR > paper uses some of the results of the ICAN testing at JPL and includes a > rather startling observation. ICAN assumed that the antimatter would be > consumed each time by the reaction, actually, it was not. It took three or > four cycles before it had to be replenished. It is only a catalyst remember. Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine, it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological (& scientific) breakthroughs. > > The current containers can store only picograms or even less > > of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter), > > and can store the antiprotons only for few days > > (they slowly annihilate inside...). > > > > Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years > > without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods > > and technology. > > Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read. > But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web. > ICAN and AIMSTAR don't need tons. > Interstellar ships will. > An interstellar drive based on an outgrowth of AIMSTAR > would only need a few grams, I don't see a problem. > No. No outgrowth of AIMSTAR will have enough performance for our starship mission purposes. The necessary performance will require tons of antimatter and efficient antimatter (not antimatter-catalysed) engine. > > > (they drove around the U.S. with the > > > storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're > > > still here so I guess it worked.) > > > > > That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time > > it will be possible... > > Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter > > on U.S. highways? I doubt that. > > Well, it isn't really all that dangerous, even if the Penning Trap had > failed, it would only have gotten a little hot, its not like it would have > exploded or anything. Since it isn't an explosive, poison or hazardous > waste, no permits are required. > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained. Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine "only a little hot"? > > You say it has performance good enough to put it into > > a starship? > > VASIMR? Heck no. Its strictly interplanetary. Unlike the ACMF proposals it > will never scale to interstellar. However, it uses several technologies > which are crucial to enhancing the performance of later generation of ACMF > or even true antimatter drives. > Ahh, but it is a long way to actual antimatter drives. There even is not a viable design concept for a true antimatter engine... > The fact that it is ready for flight > testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted > an example of a real working space drive, I provided one. > But it is still not "real working". And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will. Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible. So we are back to square one, despite your example. > > Seems to be a misunderstanding here. > > I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly > > that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote > > that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship > > is "not necessarily" needed... > > Nope, I said it wasn't necessary to build a manned habitat to mine > asteroids. Then promptly intimated that WE would prefer that they were > manned because we need the experience working in space precisely because > it was necessary in order to build a starship. > OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the tag to that your sentence? > > Exactly. Almost. > > I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth. > > I am in no way against going to find out. > > Oh I think given a few more years we will be able to tell from here whether > it has an Earthlike atmosphere or not - which doesn't necessarily mean that > it is "habitable". Which is why I said the only way to find out is to go. > Agreed. > > Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet > > (in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat > > for a significant number of people), that building equivalent > > artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. > > Well, I think most people, including the general public would agree with > you there. I am just saying that it makes more sense to settle the system's > asteroids, moons and other ore rich bodies first, but that is a whole > different argument. > It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats. You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity, appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...). I still think the balance is towards a planet, at least with current technology. It may change when the space/asteroid habitats will be a common thing, with appropriate construction and maintenace technology evolved into something familiar and efficient (and possibly with gentic-engineered species of humans to live in this environment). > > I see that I must add a proper disclaimer: > > ------------------------------------------ > > I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think. > > My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved > > and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that > > all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately) > > may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence > > where a call to arms seems more appropriate. > > I agree. > Good. I think it is a basis for effective progress in any area - not too much of an easy optimism. Just enough to feel the thing is worth the effort... -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4532" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "16:24:27" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "117" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4532 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25411 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:28:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA25366 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA14165; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:24:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131524.QAA14165@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:24:27 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> > It must of course start from building > >> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. > >> > >> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some > >> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for > >> our own reasons . > >> > >First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully > >automated without human supervision, and will not without > >real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. > > Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement. > Maybe not, but it will help significantly... > >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human > >habitat in space", and rather large for that. > >How to build one without any prior experience? > >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be > >that going to another star? > > Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate > and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be. > But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years (which by today's standards is close to "permanent"), in complete isolation from any help from outside. We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space, not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems). I do not think one can build a starship from scratch WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually working in relative isolation for tens of years (or at least several years). Till now we have only a little experience with habitats for several people that can work for several months on near-earth orbit. > Size and weight being real biggees. That fact we probably couldn't > make it work being a better one. > Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly > self sufficent. > It depends on the time scale, I think. [...] > >True, but we should START going in the first place. > >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step, > >we made two steps back. > > Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs > in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay > for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have > viciously defended. > You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy to use as much of already proved technology rather than make all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket, which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest) as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know, none is preserved (even rusted). > >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, > >and not always ahead. > >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders > >will build the necessary space infrastructure. > > Big agree. > Kelly, I start to worry - who will quarrel on the list if we two start to agree on so many issues? ;-)) > >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating > >(for Sagan). > > Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space > exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment > to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine > for robots and science probes. > That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus). He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that, but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them. However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea" of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration, as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance. He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead... [...] > >I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet > >around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will > >be either inhabitable, or deadly. > > Thanks. > Again, what with our quarrels? ;-) -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6283" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:12:34" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "155" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6283 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18776 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA18737 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14203; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:12:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131612.RAA14203@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:12:34 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> > >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. > >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. > >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to > >> require none. > > > >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction > >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust > >still wait for breaktroughs. > > We don't actually need sustained, > Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept may lead to a viable starship engine? I doubt it. > and certainly thats not a major > breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real > applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline, > but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive > would get funding in the next few decades. > I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, but all currents concepts how to built it I know about seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. > >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers - > >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means > >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it > >highly impractical, if at all possible to build > >and keep in operation for tens of years. > > Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of > SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it. > I forgot the English equivalent of the Polisk proverb: "Zamienil stryjek siekierke na kijek"... It means roughly that you exchange one big problem for another, possibly even bigger... > >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question > >of efficiency, but not only). > > Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The > power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't > change much. > Just "dumped"? Into what "area"? In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium) into that huge radiating structure... Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible. > >The question of scale is important - for interstellar > >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders > >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now, > >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work. > > Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs. > First, manufacturing ability means having an appropriate technology too. Second, there are enginering, material strength, heat transfer, etc. limits and thresholds that do not scale up indefinitely. Because of that the aircraft-carrier engine is neither a magnified Chevrolet engine nor some thousands of Chevrolet engines linked together, but a completely new design. Our technology has NO experience with size and power scales needed for a starship systems. At these scales, quite new problems will emerge, and thus corresponding completely different designs will be needed - to be invented, built, and tested... > >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and > >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). > >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? > > I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. > I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological (and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it, provided we have the money. > >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion... > > Let repeat the above once more... > >> A big problem is the two are competitors. > >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. > >> > >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches. > > That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't > think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems. > Not necessarily. E.g, on Mercury there is plenty of solar power, but all hydrogen (or other fusion fuel) is most likely to be completely absent. It is the other way around near Jupiter... > >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly): > >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik). > >And a technology advance sense too (mostly subordinated to political). > >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts, > >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo > >was promptly wasted. > > Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", > but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. > I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when political reasons lead to great technological advances. I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances... > Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was > avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable > booster concept. > I wrote also about this in another letter. Of course, since one of the biggest factors was time, if something could have been done with existing technology, it was - it is a safe and fast strategy (it is also used in Zubrin's Mars Direct project - and justifiably). Despite that, Apollo did lead to technology developments too. > >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth > >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar > >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human > >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its > >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen, > >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology > >power step. > >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years. > > Agreed. > You see, so even we CAN outperform your "historian from 1919". I also think that that historian was smart enough too, despite your doubts... -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3095" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:35:46" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "82" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3095 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00934 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:39:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA00849 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14219; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:35:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131635.RAA14219@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:35:46 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> > >[...] > >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government > >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization > >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late > >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization. > >> > >Possibly, but you must start from something. > >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me. > > But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like > Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space. > So what would you consider a start? Building a viable starship from scratch? > >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly > >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will > >> >be one-way... > >> > >> Not likely. ;) > >> > >Not likely what? > > That it will settle our perennial quarrel. > So I suspected. You are sinking my last hopes... ;-) > >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team > >> and abondon them there to die. > >> > >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda! > >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not > >to understand that! > >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-)) > > Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give > them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever > after the missions over. ;) > I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission meets the acceptability criteria. > >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization > >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed > >> on Earthly colonization projects. > >> > >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, > >interplanetary-space society. > > Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental > new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics. > Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been already discussed by others on the list), my main point was that that "quite different interplanetary-space society" will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound (or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" - hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them. That is not the question of "new laws". Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria", like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects. Not speaking about the fact that in those times there even were no fashion shows in Paris... -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 10:10:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2788" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:53:15" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "72" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2788 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12000 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA11982 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14239; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:53:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131653.RAA14239@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:53:15 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> > >> > As far as I know, still only on paper. > >> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by > >> > actual fusion reaction? > >> > >> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions > >> and verified the energy output. > >> > >Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy > >balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment! > > It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser > fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in > the '80's eaither. > Exactly. It wasn't sustained, and no way was proposed to make it practical on realistic power levels. So it was only a scientific experiment, not a technology proposal. Nothing exciting for the media, nor for the starship-builders. [...] > >Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years > >without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods > >and technology. > > Here we agree! > Again... Who I will be able to quarrel with? ;-)) > >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will > >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter > >on U.S. highways? I doubt that. > > Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. > I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too. > Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so small that there is no real danger even when the container fails. It will be another thing with larger amounts. Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers on highways is a proof that we can make and transport antimatter in bulk... [...] > >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet > >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat > >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent > >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. > > Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing > and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your > not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift > costs are about nil. > Only if you assume that all resources should be transported to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water, appropriate temperature, base-building materials... -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["861" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:59:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "21" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 861 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12310 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA12300 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14246; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:59:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131659.RAA14246@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:59:17 +0100 (MET) > From: David Levine > > I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by > industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be > operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future. > > Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest > customers might not be on the Earth. > I think that space mining will have rather little use as a source of raw materials for Earth-bound industry. 99% of its output will be used by space infrastructure, or by such places like the Moon, lacking some essential resources, and much cheaper than Earth concerning transportation costs. And there is a big bootstrap problem: space mining is impractical without developed human space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure is impossible without space mining... -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3109" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "18:03:35" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "76" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3109 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12579 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA12558 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.57] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zT7oT-0004WJ-00; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:00:46 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) 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 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:03:35 +0100 >>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically >toxic >>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. >> >>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it >just >>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in >diffusion. >>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found >roving >>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's >>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty >or >>clayey. > >That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said >the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a super- >oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules. I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were "dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the others.. >>> Also the radiation levels are real bad. >> >>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in >quantity >>- >>and no shielding stops them. > >Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad. And you can't shield against neutrinos anyway. >>So I think the threat is overblown. >> >>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien >>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we >are >>to >>any exobiological entities. > >Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats. The most devestating diseases known (almost without exception) all come from other creatures - eg, AIDs from monkeys, possibly CJD from sheep (then to cows). Obviously, the reason they are so deadly is that our bodies have never encountered them before, so the immune system doesn't realise, or can't stop the new virii/bacteria. The question is, how alien would you expect these virii to be - it's possible that they are too alien to affect us in the slightest, and it is also technically possible that they might be almsot exactly the same as some we encounter now, so our body can deal with them... However, far more likely that they will be partly alien, but also partly familiar. It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases, which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy. The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for us. And considering we can't stop earth-born virii, or some bacteria, the chances of us being able to develop and deploy a vaccine or cure for these alien diseases are slim to none. Andrew West. From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1031" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:28:16" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "22" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1031 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12556 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA12537 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.57] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zT7oX-0004WJ-00; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:00:49 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013172816.007b4100@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org> References: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:28:16 +0100 >On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe, >because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to >maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having >to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make >all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce >some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that >society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models >that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't >produce a social organization different than what has existed in >history? You could consider a water empire as a parallel to this, where the gorvernment controls all supply to water, so effectively controls who lives and who dies - if there were some riots in a part of town, simply cut off the water supply, and they'll all go away and die. But asides from being picky, I think you're right, there are always things we dont' consider, so you can't safely rule new economic/sociological conditions. Andrew West From VM Tue Oct 13 10:54:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["681" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "13:32:10" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 681 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09530 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09521 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2E4@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:32:10 -0400 > ---------- > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 12:59 PM > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > And there is a big bootstrap problem: > space mining is impractical without developed human > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure > is impossible without space mining... > And that's where space-tourism comes in. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Tue Oct 13 11:49:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1360" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:30:08" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1360 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12427 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA12402 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA14314; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:30:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810131830.TAA14314@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:30:08 +0100 (MET) > From: David Levine > > > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > > > > And there is a big bootstrap problem: > > space mining is impractical without developed human > > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure > > is impossible without space mining... > > > And that's where space-tourism comes in. > Or something other we may not yet foresee. Usually sooner or later something surfaces. Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon) until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder than trip to low orbit today. Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars, even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in this direction. Necessity to sustain people there for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion systems and other advanced technologies, opening this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining assessment missions. I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS (which in current situation seems only a complicated way of transferring funds to Russian mafia), leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies, (or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-) and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors like the Mars Base. -- Zenon From VM Tue Oct 13 14:30:26 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["335" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "23:09:03" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "8" "" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 335 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05103 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 OAA05031 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem679.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.167]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA17619 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:10:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013230903.006a4654@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013172816.007b4100@mail.u-net.com> References: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org> <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> <83536781.3622c453@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:09:03 +0100 >You could consider a water empire as a parallel to this, where the >gorvernment controls all supply to water, so effectively controls who lives >and who dies - if there were some riots in a part of town, simply cut off >the water supply, and they'll all go away and die. Talk about an incentive to search for a new Earth... ;) Tim From VM Tue Oct 13 14:30:26 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1057" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "23:04:28" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "23" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1057 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05118 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 OAA05000 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem679.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.167]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA17586 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:10:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:04:28 +0100 Andrew wrote: >It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is >why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases, >which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy. Of course this balance has evolved over milions of years. On another planet we are likely to be totally out of balance. >The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come >from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new >hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the >alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood >cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for us. But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? Timothy From VM Tue Oct 13 15:39:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1266" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1266 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14883 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA14849 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15856 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:21 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bdf6f7$ac7bee40$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199810131524.QAA14165@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:24 -0500 Kelly, Zenon et. al., > You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy > to use as much of already proved technology rather than make > all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology > progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket, > which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest) > as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient > as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly > lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know, > none is preserved (even rusted). > > > > >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, > > >and not always ahead. > > >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders > > >will build the necessary space infrastructure. > > > > Big agree. Several years ago I read an article somewhere about how someone in the space program had realized that we were reinventing the wheel. It seems that a lot of the small things were getting reinvented again and again because there was no database of designs that had been proven to work reliably. For instance, if you needed a turbo pump, you designed a turbo pump instead of getting one off of the shelf. Has anyone heard what became of his idea to start such a technology database? Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 15:39:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["106" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:29" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 106 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14940 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA14912 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15867; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bdf6f7$afa93960$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2E4@mail.actionworld.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "David Levine" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:29 -0500 > And that's where space-tourism comes in. The Japanese are already designing hotels in space... Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 15:41:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5520" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:07" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "116" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5520 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14886 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14850 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15843; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:14 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:07 -0500 Zenon, > > ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. > Perhaps you should > > check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the > data is there. > > > OK, I will. > But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware? The team working on the original ACMF concept using ion drivers actually performed some hardware experiments to provide enough data to confirm the theoretical predictions. The AIMSTAR concept however, although based on the data provided by the ACMF experiments, has not been tested in hardware as far as I am aware. The predicted performance was obtained by study of the original ACMF experiments. > Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine, > it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological > (& scientific) breakthroughs. But it is scalable, the current generation uses hydrogen, this technology can be used with Lithium or Boron to achieve substantially higher ISPs. Improvements in magnetic confinement technology may allow it to be boosted even farther. As it stands right now, either of these drives turns the solar system into our backyard and although not suitable for manned interstellar travel, they could put a scientific package through Alpha Centauri in only a few hundred years. > > Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read. > > > But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can > contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web. Are we both talking about Penning traps? > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained. > Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount > of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine > "only a little hot"? If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow your hand off... To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be quite deadly when properly utilized. > > The fact that it is ready for flight > > testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted > > an example of a real working space drive, I provided one. > > > But it is still not "real working". > And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will. > Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible. > So we are back to square one, despite your example. Here we go again, if I build a widget in my garage and test it in my garage, but don't actually put it in a widget machine, you mean to tell me it isn't real? Come on, get a life. VASIMR is fired almost daily, if you don't think it is a real working engine, let them test it in you living room next time! I understand a little skepticism now and then, there are certainly enough perpetual motion machines and cold fusion devices running around, but to call a functioning rocket engine sitting in a laboratory in a college in Texas not real is really pushing it! I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I specifically stated that it wasn't. It IS every bit as powerful as a fusion engine, a lot easier to do, and working now. That is all I ever claimed it was. This was all in response to your assertion that the technology was a long way off. Maybe, maybe not. VASIMR is simply an example that the technology may be closer than you think. > > OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the tag to > that your sentence? The grin was to emphasize the point that even though I disagreed with the statement about automation, I (and we) would personally rather they were manned because we have our own agenda, it was not meant to make you think I was speaking tongue in cheek! I believe that a lot more automation will be possible than we are allowing for, but I personally don't believe in sending robot probes to the stars. The whole point is that WE want to go, not our electronic henchmen. > It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic > costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats. > You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger > demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you > want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid > instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity, > appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...). > I still think the balance is towards a planet, > at least with current technology. > It may change when the space/asteroid habitats > will be a common thing, with appropriate construction > and maintenance technology evolved into something familiar > and efficient (and possibly with gentic-engineered species > of humans to live in this environment). I don't know. This is another of those areas where we can't tell because we haven't done it yet and therefore have no comparison. At a guess, I would speculate that it will be a net wash - it will not be a great deal more profitable nor a great deal more expensive for either case. Mostly because in order for the space portion to become possible, the rules have to change enough that it mandates that the costs will be equal and any technological improvements that make this possible will probably have off-setting benefits to life on Earth that we haven't even thought of yet, so again, the costs balance out. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 15:41:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1033" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1033 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14908 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA14891 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15863; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "A West" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:27 -0500 > It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is > why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases, > which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy. This statement only applies in the context of the environment that includes the virus and its "host". It does not apply when an alien host that did not evolve in that environment is introduced. The example of the American Indians has already been introduced byt someone else, but I would like to point out that it was only a trivial example of what is possible. The pathogens that decimated the American Indians at least shared _some_ evolutionary background. A pathogen capable of infecting a human that shared none of our evolutionary background might not even be recognized as dangerous by our immune system, it might even think our immune system was the tastiest part! Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too frightening to contemplate. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 15:46:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["869" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:34:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 869 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24685 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:34:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA24573 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA17671; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:34:26 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Timothy van der Linden" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:34:30 -0500 Timothy, > But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, > they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a > numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. > I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most > badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to raise. When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we exhale our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and viruses will be to THEM? What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the mere act of breathing? No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 16:05:32 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1453" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "15:59:23" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1453 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13109 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13095 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08365 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA03440; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13859.56139.671835.70894@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker> References: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> <000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained. > > Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount > > of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine > > "only a little hot"? > > If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a > match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although > your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a > tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow > your hand off... > > To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather > loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be > quite deadly when properly utilized. One million antiprotons are about (1/6.023*10^23)*10^6 grams of mass; twice that mass converted to energy is about 3*10^-4 Joules. Admittedly that turns out to be a fair amount of hard radiation (gamma rays plus pions and such) if you annihilate them all at once; perhaps you could give someone cancer or radiation poisoning if you direct them properly. But you'd need many billions of antiprotons before you could blow anyone's hand off. However, it does seem as if antiproton-catalyzed fusion will require a fairly hefty supply of antiprotons. Neither does it seem likely that you can generate enough antiprotons from the energy released by fusion to have a self-sustaining system. From VM Tue Oct 13 16:25:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1806" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:13:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1806 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22075 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA22064 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WXQa22760 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:13:23 -0400 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:13:23 EDT In a message dated 10/12/98 9:02:08 AM, david@playlink.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM >> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. >> >> >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism. >> >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism. >> >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research >> into >> >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing. >> >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon, >> >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining. >> >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first >> >asteroid mining. >> >> Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply >> enough. >> I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of >> launching >> an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to >> think of a >> way around.) >> >> >> >I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by >industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be >operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future. > >Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest >customers might not be on the Earth. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long term investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space colonization that would support something like our starship project. Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has droped a lot in the last decade. Kelly Kelly From VM Tue Oct 13 16:56:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1222" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:29:04" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "30" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1222 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09973 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09925 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:29:05 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2EC@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:29:04 -0400 > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:13 PM > Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no > long term > investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not > be > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major > space > colonization that would support something like our starship project. > > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in > it has > droped a lot in the last decade. > Well, it depends on your definition of long-term and short-term. There have been companies in the past that have supported research with no immediate or obvious financial gain. Also, my timeline postulated the existence of zero-g manufacturing. That, and a growing space infrastructure of private labs and tourist facilities would be good customers. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Tue Oct 13 17:00:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2731" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "18:52:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2731 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15512 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:53:23 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA15435 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA26770; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:52:34 -0500 Message-ID: <000901bdf704$8bade080$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <13859.56139.671835.70894@tzadkiel.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:52:32 -0500 Steve, > One million antiprotons are about (1/6.023*10^23)*10^6 grams of > mass; twice that mass converted to energy is about 3*10^-4 > Joules. Admittedly that turns out to be a fair amount of hard > radiation (gamma rays plus pions and such) if you annihilate them > all at once; perhaps you could give someone cancer or radiation > poisoning if you direct them properly. But you'd need many > billions of antiprotons before you could blow anyone's hand off. > > However, it does seem as if antiproton-catalyzed fusion will > require a fairly hefty supply of antiprotons. Neither does it > seem likely that you can generate enough antiprotons from the > energy released by fusion to have a self-sustaining system. Admittedly, it will take quite a bit more than what current Penning traps hold to become "dangerous", you probably could dump them in your hand without any significant effect. My intent was to illustrate by analogy that the preceding statement was nonsense. Antiproton catalyzed micro fusion is not self sustaining, it requires a regular injection of fresh antiprotons every few cycles or so (which is better than what we thought a year ago). It is, however, an over entropy reaction, unless one considers the energy put into creating the antiprotons in the first place, in which case it becomes the world's most expensive battery... However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the current generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic. Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities somewhere off-planet (talk about a terrorist target). This scenario dodges the entire question of self-sustaining over entropy fusion reactors, which although they would be nice, aren't necessary. The problem is, even with a thousand fold increase in power provided by Lithium, Boron, etc. (which is stretching it), this will only meet the lowest level engine specification I am currently proposing to the group - which means a trip duration too long for human explorers. It can be considered an interstellar drive, just not one we can use to meet our goals. >From what I can see of the plans for the next twenty five years in space, commercial enterprise will be firmly ensconced throughout near Earth space by that time. We will already have acquired much of the experience I was talking about and which most members of this list seem to agree is necessary. That leaves us the next twenty five years to bring to maturity the technologies required to transition from interplanetary to interstellar. Lee From VM Tue Oct 13 17:12:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["853" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:03:13" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 853 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22454 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:05:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA22429 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA27880; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:13 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bdf706$0a066e60$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:13 -0500 Kelly, > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be > no long term > investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space > colonization that would support something like our starship project. > > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest > in it has > droped a lot in the last decade. True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing, tourism, etc. As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe someone should add it to the web site? Lee From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["658" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "04:01:08" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "13" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 658 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02907 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:01:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA02896 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.195.90] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zTH8i-0000eK-00; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:58:16 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014040108.00908aa0@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: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker> References: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:01:08 +0100 >The example of the American >Indians has already been introduced byt someone else, but I would like to >point out that it was only a trivial example of what is possible. The >pathogens that decimated the American Indians at least shared _some_ >evolutionary background. That was my point - a virus is far more likely to affect a biology with which is shares _some_ eveloutionary background - I would consider it highly unlikely that a completely alien biology would contain virii capable of doing us much harm, but an alien biology which wasn't totally disimmilar to our own would comtain considerably more virii capable of dealing us damage. Andrew West From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1390" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "10:09:09" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "33" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1390 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA20135 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA20119 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09528 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:50 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810140859.JAA09528@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47FTG2ZA>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:08:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:09:09 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 5:59 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > >And there is a big bootstrap problem: >space mining is impractical without developed human >space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure >is impossible without space mining... > >-- Zenon I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive" to launch that much raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least. Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of infrastructure). Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing and able to: (a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed (b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns which has been mentioned before on this list. Chris Walker From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["821" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:57:40" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 821 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28399 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 DAA28387 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem686.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.174]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09796 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:08:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014115740.0068da34@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.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 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:57:40 +0100 Kelly & Kelly wrote: >Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long term >investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be >economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space >colonization that would support something like our starship project. > >Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has >droped a lot in the last decade. > >Kelly > >Kelly Your alter ego is surfacing ;)) Maybe a shortterm profit can be generated by selling exclusive rights of mining the first few asteroids to those that will be there first. (This is a probably a bit too easy, but I guess you catch my drift.) Right now space is supposed to be from everybody, but clearly that doesn't work if economical advantages are to be made. Timothy From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1399" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:49:30" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "33" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1399 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28388 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 DAA28381 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem686.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.174]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09762 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:08:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014114930.0068e144@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker> References: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:49:30 +0100 Hello Lee, >You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to >raise. Indeed I was not yet concentrating on the survival of the original planet biosphere. >What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the >mere act of breathing? > >No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. Of course there may be something in between, we may be able to live on the surface of a planet and use its resources, but inside a spacestation-like habitat. And if we go outside we go in space suit equivalents. (Except that we may not have to produce oxigen and don't have as much pressure or heat/cold problems.) Our waste could be ionized or at least decomposed in such a way that it would be completely harmless. My guess is that *small* cross contaminations won't be hazardous, since it is few against many and the few are in a foreign environment, so they will be killed before they can give their genetic deviations by each multiplication a chance. So rupturing a space suit may not be the end of your live, nor the life on the planet, as long as you quickly do something about it. But of course, as long as we haven't experience with alien lifeforms, we can't be sure. However since we will be wanting to study alien biotopes from close by, I don't think it is that strange to "park" our spacelab right next to them. Timothy From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2111" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:18:56" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2111 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA02250 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA02234 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA13628 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:31:25 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810141031.LAA13628@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47KT155J>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:39:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Starship Design'" Subject: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:18:56 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: L. Parker [SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 11:35 PM > To: Timothy van der Linden > Cc: Starship Design > Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again > >When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we exhale >our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets >species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and >viruses will be to THEM? > >What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the >mere act of breathing? What about the rule of "survival of the fittest"? OK, fair enough, it's hardly desirable (from a morla point of view) for us to land on a planet and kill off it's indigenous population (assuming that would actually happen). However, if us humans have proven ourselves to be a "fit" species by managing to evolve to a sufficient level where we can realise interstellar travel and colonise other planets, then surely it's fair play if we can survive on these other worlds. If their bacteria & virii kill US off, fair play again - we weren't fit enough to adapt. This then brings up the point in my mind genetic engineering - ie. if we can produce (through GE) a human sub-species that can safely live on a new planet, then that also demonstrates our fitness to adapt and survive. Before you start thinking that I'm a heartless anti-environment kind of guy, I'd like to make the distinction between the deliberate murder of species (eg. whale-hunting) as opposed to indirectly (and only possibly) killing off other micro-organisms with the bacteria that we happen to carry in our bodies. A fine line indeed, though. I appreciate that just becuase it's small (eg. virii) doesn't mean it doen't have the right to live, but all life is a constant struggle to survive and compete with other life. Some win, some lose. >No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to only land on dead planets where our bacteria won't inadvertently kill off other life. Chris Walker From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["691" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "07:04:01" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 691 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12987 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:04:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA12979 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p227.gnt.com [204.49.89.227]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA19065; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:04:24 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bdf76a$bc3dc240$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981014040108.00908aa0@mail.u-net.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "A West" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:04:01 -0500 Andrew, What you say seems logical at first glance, but... > That was my point - a virus is far more likely to affect a biology with > which is shares _some_ eveloutionary background - I would consider it > highly unlikely that a completely alien biology would contain > virii capable > of doing us much harm, but an alien biology which wasn't totally > disimmilar > to our own would comtain considerably more virii capable of > dealing us damage. Unfortunately, there are absolutely no factst to support his argument. It is all supposition and wishful thinking. Equally, there are no facts to support the OTHER argument either. The point was, we don't know and can't hope to guess. Lee From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["513" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:41:46" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "18" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 513 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA27658 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (nKFP38F55o52c1tV4UNCTvjxZmHD+AV8@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA27651 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id PAA28227 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:41:47 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: Starship Design Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:41:46 +0200 (MET DST) On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just > don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too > frightening to contemplate. > > Lee Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties, always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown, NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG omelet... /Bjorn From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["261" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:51:25" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 261 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29718 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (CiDw7BXTNFpUwX5KXuxNifxfatdv7ilO@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA29668 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id PAA28874 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:51:25 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: Starship Design Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:51:25 +0200 (MET DST) On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. > > Lee > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there... /Bjorn From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7184" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:35:27" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "162" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7184 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04944 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA04928 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15346; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:35:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810141535.QAA15346@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:35:27 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > > ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps > > > you should check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, > > > ALL of the data is there. > > > > > OK, I will. > > But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware? > > The team working on the original ACMF concept using ion drivers actually > performed some hardware experiments to provide enough data to confirm the > theoretical predictions. The AIMSTAR concept however, although based on the > data provided by the ACMF experiments, has not been tested in hardware as > far as I am aware. The predicted performance was obtained by study of the > original ACMF experiments. > Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed. > > Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine, > > it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological > > (& scientific) breakthroughs. > > But it is scalable, the current generation uses hydrogen, this technology > can be used with Lithium or Boron to achieve substantially higher ISPs. > Improvements in magnetic confinement technology may allow it to be boosted > even farther. As it stands right now, either of these drives turns the solar > system into our backyard and although not suitable for manned interstellar > travel, > Again, exactly my point. So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-) > they could put a scientific package through Alpha Centauri in only a > few hundred years. > > > Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read. > > > > > But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can > > contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web. > > Are we both talking about Penning traps? > It seems so... > > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained. > > Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount > > of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine > > "only a little hot"? > > If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a > match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although > your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a > tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow > your hand off... > > To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather > loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be > quite deadly when properly utilized. > You are right, of course, with flash powder. But consider the question of scale - the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off is very tiny as compared with the difference between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship... > > > The fact that it is ready for flight > > > testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted > > > an example of a real working space drive, I provided one. > > > > > But it is still not "real working". > > And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will. > > Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible. > > So we are back to square one, despite your example. > > Here we go again, if I build a widget in my garage and test it in my garage, > but don't actually put it in a widget machine, you mean to tell me it isn't > real? Come on, get a life. VASIMR is fired almost daily, if you don't think > it is a real working engine, let them test it in you living room next time! > I would rather not. Since it is not tested enough, it may easily blow off! ;-) > I understand a little skepticism now and then, there are certainly enough > perpetual motion machines and cold fusion devices running around, but to > call a functioning rocket engine sitting in a laboratory in a college in > Texas not real is really pushing it! > Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form. I meant "not real working space drive". For me, it can be called "real working space drive" only after being tested in space. > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I > specifically stated that it wasn't. > I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very beginning was specifically about starhip technology. > It IS every bit as powerful as a fusion > engine, a lot easier to do, and working now. That is all I ever claimed it > was. This was all in response to your assertion that the technology was a > long way off. Maybe, maybe not. VASIMR is simply an example that the > technology may be closer than you think. > OK, OK, don't become too hot ;-)) I am not so die-hard pessimist (see my discalimer in some other letter), I only want to have the FACTS right, not mixed with wishful thinking. My doubts were about starship propulsion technology - hence your examples, impressive as they may be, are simply off-topic... > > OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the tag to > > that your sentence? > > The grin was to emphasize the point that even though I disagreed with the > statement about automation, I (and we) would personally rather they were > manned because we have our own agenda, it was not meant to make you think I > was speaking tongue in cheek! I believe that a lot more automation will be > possible than we are allowing for, but I personally don't believe in sending > robot probes to the stars. The whole point is that WE want to go, not our > electronic henchmen. > OK, I agree. The grin disoriented me somewhat. > > It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic > > costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats. > > You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger > > demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you > > want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid > > instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity, > > appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...). > > I still think the balance is towards a planet, > > at least with current technology. > > It may change when the space/asteroid habitats > > will be a common thing, with appropriate construction > > and maintenance technology evolved into something familiar > > and efficient (and possibly with genetic-engineered species > > of humans to live in this environment). > > I don't know. This is another of those areas where we can't tell because we > haven't done it yet and therefore have no comparison. At a guess, I would > speculate that it will be a net wash - it will not be a great deal more > profitable nor a great deal more expensive for either case. Mostly because > in order for the space portion to become possible, the rules have to change > enough that it mandates that the costs will be equal and any technological > improvements that make this possible will probably have off-setting benefits > to life on Earth that we haven't even thought of yet, so again, the costs > balance out. > Possibly they do. But an attempt to do a more precise comparison would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more precisely than our gueses and speculations here. -- Zenon From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1623" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:44:00" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "35" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1623 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09451 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA09442 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15404; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:44:00 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810141544.QAA15404@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:44:00 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > [...] > > However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine > could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the current > generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic. > Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry > converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities > somewhere off-planet > See, Kelly, you have another niche for the solar power generators in space! [...] > The problem is, even with a thousand fold increase in power provided by > Lithium, Boron, etc. (which is stretching it), this will only meet the > lowest level engine specification I am currently proposing to the group - > which means a trip duration too long for human explorers. It can be > considered an interstellar drive, just not one we can use to meet our goals. > Exactly. So my skepticism seems well-founded anyway. > >From what I can see of the plans for the next twenty five years in space, > commercial enterprise will be firmly ensconced throughout near Earth space > by that time. We will already have acquired much of the experience I was > talking about and which most members of this list seem to agree is > necessary. That leaves us the next twenty five years to bring to maturity > the technologies required to transition from interplanetary to interstellar. > Say, which technologies? Concerning propulsion, you explicitly stated that the antimatter-catalyzed microfusion will not do. Hence it is how I wrote - we still need some breaktroughs... -- Zenon From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["987" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:45:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 987 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10404 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:49:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA10343 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15409; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:45:30 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810141545.QAA15409@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:45:30 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long > > term investments. Also without a large scale market, mining would not be > > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space > > colonization that would support something like our starship project. > > > > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest > > in it has droped a lot in the last decade. > > True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on > the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes > into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that > would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing, > tourism, etc. > > As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe > someone should add it to the web site? > Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? -- Zenon From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1941" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:56:36" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "44" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1941 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15486 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:00:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA15468 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15454; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:56:36 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810141556.QAA15454@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:56:36 +0100 (MET) > From: "Walker, Chris" > > > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > > > >And there is a big bootstrap problem: > >space mining is impractical without developed human > >space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure > >is impossible without space mining... > > I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is > overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive" > "Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense. > to launch that much > raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least. > Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet > those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial > outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a > starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe > very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further > facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of infrastructure). > > Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing > and able to: > (a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed > (b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns > > which has been mentioned before on this list. > Exactly. Just that I call the "big bootstrap problem" - big, because in this case the initial investment may be much larger than any needed before on Earth. Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism, will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller. Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based astronomers and radio-astronomers...). -- Zenon From VM Wed Oct 14 10:14:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["174" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "09:05:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 174 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20517 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20507 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:06:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA02593 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA30021; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:05:58 -0500 Message-ID: <001501bdf77b$b955fbe0$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199810141031.LAA13628@ns0.sky.co.uk> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Walker, Chris" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:05:38 -0500 Chris, Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which is more fit... Lee From VM Wed Oct 14 10:43:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6065" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "03:34:01" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "174" "Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6065 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA05617 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05594 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne1p33.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.97]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18801 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:33:26 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" From: "AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:34:01 +1000 -----Original Message----- From: KellySt@aol.com To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Date: Tuesday, 13 October 1998 13:23 Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs >> >>Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it >could >>get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times >more >>they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses >CH4/LOX >>but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp >~ >>+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the >neighbours >>getting such technology, can we? > >These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you don't >get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy story >echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators. > The Isps are legit. They're possible because of the tri-propellent approach they use. But as you say they're un-necessary for cost-reductions in launch costs. What's needed is a reusable vehicle/s with low overheads and lots of business... >On the other hand there are some commercial research programs that are >building and testing commercial launchers that could do similarly spectacular >cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a >market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to operate >a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then >technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide >launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty. >>> If only NASA had undertaken the Mars/Moon/LEO program in the 70s, and half-a-trillion bucks hadn't been blown on Vietnam. >>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically >toxic >>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. >> >>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it >just >>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in >diffusion. >>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found >roving >>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's >>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty >or >>clayey. > >That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said >the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a super- >oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules. > Like I said there's no evidence for any such reactions. The guys who research the cause of the those Viking results ultimately found no evidence of super-oxides, especially since they're photochemically unstable. > > >>> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book >>> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is >rusting >>> >>> >around the US. >>> > >> >>Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with >the >>Shuttles and the old Saturns. > >Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal. > Stephen actually researched it and you'd be surprised what's still possible. I was expressing my frustration with the whole NASA approach. > >>> >>> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish >>> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. >>> >>> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. >Also >>> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean >it >>> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton >of >>> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. >> >>Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced >magnetic >>materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc >>super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy! > > ?! Fusion needs none of those. > !? You sure? I've been watching fusion research fora while and that's the kind of thing they're talking about. Really practical fusion needs to get away from bulky magnetics and needs smart plasma control. > >>> >>> Also the radiation levels are real bad. >> >>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in >quantity >>- >>and no shielding stops them. > >Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad. > In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other? >>There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter - >>weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for >>centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. > >They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of them >have proven very deadly. > Such as? Though you may be right, I have trouble seeing just how. Some people want to stop a Mars Sample Return on the basis that Mars might have life. Personally I think the risk is lower than paranoia imagines. > > >>So I think the threat is overblown. >> >>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien >>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we >are >>to >>any exobiological entities. > >Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats. > Typical. Always something I miss. If it's fruit "bats" they might still be close[ish] relatives. Some say they're primates. > >>Adam > >Kelly > Adam PS Engine performance... if it's a fusion system we're talking about then most studies say 0.1 g would be amazing, unless it's pulse using BIG bombs. High Isp fusion usually involves low thrust levels and low accelerations. We're talking 0.01 - 0.001 g, or worse. I think we might find ways of doing better, but 0.25 g would be great. Higher is getting into the ridiculous. Really high accelerations [+100 g] becomes possible with externally propelled systems, NOT with fusion or antimatter drives. Adam From VM Wed Oct 14 10:43:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["401" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "18:30:50" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 401 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06302 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06282 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA05967 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA15549; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:30:50 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810141730.SAA15549@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:30:50 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species > which is more fit... > That is quite possible. Thus I would rather not count on that hope - better work hard to become more fit. And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early... -- Zenon From VM Wed Oct 14 14:11:22 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1081" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:27:11" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "[Fwd: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1081 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24400 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA24395 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-52.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.52]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27580 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3625253F.593F@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again] Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:27:11 -0700 Message-ID: <36252213.685E@sunherald.infi.net> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:13:39 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Reply-To: stk@sunherald.infi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timothy van der Linden Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again References: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl> <3.0.1.32.19981014114930.0068e144@pop.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Timothy van der Linden wrote: > But of course, as long as we haven't experience with alien lifeforms, we > can't be sure. However since we will be wanting to study alien biotopes > from close by, I don't think it is that strange to "park" our spacelab > right next to them. Good point, Timothy. I agree with your approach; put a closed habitat on the planet surface. You can't study the biosphere strictly from orbit. Then, eventually, you might be able to determine whether it is safe for you (or the biosphere) to breathe the atmosphere or not. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Wed Oct 14 14:18:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["633" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:26:41" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 633 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19334 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19316 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA24162 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-52.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.52]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14551 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36252521.F77@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001501bdf77b$b955fbe0$2d5b31cc@lparker> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:26:41 -0700 L. Parker wrote: > > Chris, > > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which > is more fit... Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly nasty way. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Wed Oct 14 16:01:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1128" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:54:27" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1128 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21716 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21574 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante24.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante24.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.74]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id PAA14260 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:28 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante24.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id PAA96986 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: <36252521.F77@sunherald.infi.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT) I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same evolutionary track. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > L. Parker wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which > > is more fit... > > Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done > nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and > they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house > and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) > > Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at > us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly > nasty way. > > Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Wed Oct 14 17:40:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["271" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "19:29:39" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 271 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11407 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:53 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA11342 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p288.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA00660; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:30:23 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bdf7d2$e5d0c860$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Bjorn Nilsson" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:29:39 -0500 Bjorn, > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live" > terran planet the more I wanna go there... I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly.... Lee From VM Wed Oct 14 17:40:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["404" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "19:29:48" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 404 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11464 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11398 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p288.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA00676; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:30:29 -0500 Message-ID: <001701bdf7d2$eb498a20$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199810141545.QAA15409@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:29:48 -0500 > > > > As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe > > someone should add it to the web site? > > > Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? > One of the new people asked me about the site yesterday, I'm afraid I couldn't tell him much. I lost the address in a system crash, and the last time I went there most of the links were broken. Kelly??? Lee From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1033" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "17:55:36" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1033 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27549 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27520 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09303 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA08870; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13861.18441.28991.660812@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2> References: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT) AJ Crowl writes: > In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic > reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other? Yeah, but those "sufficient numbers" are absolutely incredible and nearly impossible to achieve except in drastic events like supernova explosions. I've seen estimates that the core collapse in a supernova produces something like 10^51 neutrinos, which is enough to cook a nearby planet merely from kinetic neutrino interactions (they occasionally bounce off nuclei imparting some of their kinetic energy, and much more rarely produce an inverse beta decay). If you're near a supernova you probably wouldn't get to see the beginning of the spectacular fireworks as a result. But there's no conceivable fusion reactor that could produce enough neutrino flux to be dangerous from its neutrino flux, no matter how close you stand. Even if you had something like Larry Niven's "reactionless" neutrino thrusters you probably couldn't get radiation effects from standing behind them. From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1781" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "20:23:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1781 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13805 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 SAA13782 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p307.gnt.com [204.49.91.67]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA06967; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:24:37 -0500 Message-ID: <001901bdf7da$77a6e740$2d5b31cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199810141535.QAA15346@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:23:50 -0500 Zenon, > Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed. Huh? > Again, exactly my point. > So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-) I give up, its not worth the effort... > > Are we both talking about Penning traps? > It seems so... No it doesn't, which is why I asked. > You are right, of course, with flash powder. > But consider the question of scale - > the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off > is very tiny as compared with the difference > between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship... No its not, you missed the point. > Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form. > I meant "not real working space drive". > For me, it can be called "real working space drive" > only after being tested in space. > > > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I > > specifically stated that it wasn't. > > > I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology > ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very > beginning was specifically about starhip technology. It is in fact good example. Nobody on this list thinks that there is a workable stardrive already built and tested in space today and that was neither the original question nor the point of this discussion. The question was what is likely to be available in fifty years? ACMF, AIMSTAR and VASIMR all show orders of magnitude improvement over what was state of the art only a few years ago. As such they are perfect examples of what MAY be possible, which is where we started. > Possibly they do. > But an attempt to do a more precise comparison > would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more > precisely than our gueses and speculations here. Its been done. Lee From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1561" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1561 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03359 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03336 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZYRa04133 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:23 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <73138028.362562ef@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:23 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 5:38:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, Zenon et. al., > > > >> You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy > >> to use as much of already proved technology rather than make > >> all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology > >> progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket, > >> which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest) > >> as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient > >> as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly > >> lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know, > >> none is preserved (even rusted). > >> > >> > >> > >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, > >> > >and not always ahead. > >> > >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders > >> > >will build the necessary space infrastructure. > >> > > >> > Big agree. > > > >Several years ago I read an article somewhere about how someone in the space > >program had realized that we were reinventing the wheel. It seems that a lot > >of the small things were getting reinvented again and again because there > >was no database of designs that had been proven to work reliably. For > >instance, if you needed a turbo pump, you designed a turbo pump instead of > >getting one off of the shelf. Has anyone heard what became of his idea to > >start such a technology database? > > > >Lee No, though there has been increasing interest in reusing old designs. On the other hand lots of the old designs are really dated. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["942" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:26" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03223 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03194 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PSYa29185 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:26 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <88df4399.362562f2@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:26 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 8:08:44 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply > >> > enough. > >> > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of > >> > launching > >> > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to > >> > think of a > >> > way around.) > > > >Make the lander in orbit out of waste products. It doesn't have to be > >complicated or expensive. NASA has been testing these spiky balloon like > >things for awhile and they work well. A two hundred dollar balloon lander > >could put a few tons of ore on the surface every few minutes. Need to aim at > >someplace large like Australia's Outback, Arizona's desert or the Sahara or > >Gobi deserts... > > > >Lee spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back to market? Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1634" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1634 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03680 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03634 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2SXBa22057 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <14ff9eca.36256302@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:42 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 5:43:58 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Timothy, > > > >> But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, > >> they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a > >> numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. > >> I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most > >> badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? > > > >You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to > >raise. > > > >When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we exhale > >our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets > >species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and > >viruses will be to THEM? >From our rotting corpse will spring forth benine earth flora and fauna to reak our revenge on the leathal biosphere!! Actually quite true, but of little comfort to the would be exploreres to know his digetive simbiots are succesfully "TERAforming" a alien world. >What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the > >mere act of breathing? > > > >No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set foot on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why? >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2115" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2115 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03619 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03517 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QCZa13873 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:34 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:34 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: David Levine >> >> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] >> > >> > And there is a big bootstrap problem: >> > space mining is impractical without developed human >> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure >> > is impossible without space mining... >> > >> And that's where space-tourism comes in. >> >Or something other we may not yet foresee. >Usually sooner or later something surfaces. >Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because >it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon) >until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration >make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder >than trip to low orbit today. Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using space. >Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars, >even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in >this direction. Necessity to sustain people there >for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion >systems and other advanced technologies, opening >this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining >assessment missions. Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have little significant impact. They have no reason to develop or use practical systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political reasons. >I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS >(which in current situation seems only a complicated >way of transferring funds to Russian mafia), Big agree!! >leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies, >(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-) >and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors >like the Mars Base. At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself usefull, but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration efforts. >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1679" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1679 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02475 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02456 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OHCa03785 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:29 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:29 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 12:09:34 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: David Levine >> >> I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by >> industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be >> operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future. >> >> Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest >> customers might not be on the Earth. >> >I think that space mining will have rather little use >as a source of raw materials for Earth-bound industry. >99% of its output will be used by space infrastructure, >or by such places like the Moon, lacking some essential resources, >and much cheaper than Earth concerning transportation costs. This is a big problem. Transport costs to space can come way down. If there is no major demand for space mining materials, it would stay cheaper to just ship up finished products, even heavy industrial products from Earth. I'm hoping the extreamly rich and plentifull ores in space, the cheap power for refineries and heavy industry, and the freedom from polution constraints, and the possibility of exotic zero-g alloyies and materials like foamed metals, will leverage up a space mining infastructure. If not, and if it can't be shiped cheaply to Earth, space will see relativly little development. >And there is a big bootstrap problem: >space mining is impractical without developed human >space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure >is impossible without space mining... Exactly. And if things on that scale arnt being done in space, our starship project if far far less likly. >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7867" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:49:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "210" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7867 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04441 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA04406 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ROEa02082 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:55 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:55 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> >> >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. >> >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. >> >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to >> >> require none. >> > >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust >> >still wait for breaktroughs. >> >> We don't actually need sustained, >> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept >may lead to a viable starship engine? Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is handelable. >I doubt it. Why? >> and certainly thats not a major >> breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real >> applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline, >> but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive >> would get funding in the next few decades. >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable it seems reasonable. Its not like I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something. >> >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers - >> >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means >> >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it >> >highly impractical, if at all possible to build >> >and keep in operation for tens of years. >> >> Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of >> SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it. >> >I forgot the English equivalent of the Polisk proverb: >"Zamienil stryjek siekierke na kijek"... >It means roughly that you exchange one big problem >for another, possibly even bigger... Could be true. >> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question >> >of efficiency, but not only). >> >> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The >> power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't >> change much. >> >Just "dumped"? Into what "area"? >In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation >only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge >high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer >from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium) >into that huge radiating structure... >Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible. Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs) scatterd over a 1 AU ring. >> >The question of scale is important - for interstellar >> >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders >> >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now, >> >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work. >> >> Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs. >> >First, manufacturing ability means having an appropriate technology too. >Second, there are enginering, material strength, heat transfer, etc. >limits and thresholds that do not scale up indefinitely. >Because of that the aircraft-carrier engine is neither a magnified >Chevrolet engine nor some thousands of Chevrolet engines >linked together, but a completely new design. In this case I'm not scaling up the systems being manufactured, just the number of them being made. >Our technology has NO experience with size and power scales >needed for a starship systems. At these scales, quite new problems >will emerge, and thus corresponding completely different designs >will be needed - to be invented, built, and tested... I'm avoiuding that be using vast numbers of more conventional scaled systems in the emmiter ring. Now the big fusion motors on the starship are an issue, but they should scale up pretty well (its down thats a problem). >> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and >> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). >> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? >> >> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. >> >I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological >(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it, >provided we have the money. Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were crazy enough to write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it. >> >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion... >> > >Let repeat the above once more... > > >> >> A big problem is the two are competitors. >> >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned. >> >> >> >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches. >> >> That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't >> think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems. >> >Not necessarily. E.g, on Mercury there is plenty >of solar power, but all hydrogen (or other fusion fuel) >is most likely to be completely absent. >It is the other way around near Jupiter... Fuel is light weight, and solar systems are a relyability and cost headach. If you got fusino, you wouldn't bother with solar power in space unless you just want bulk heat for melting stuff. >> >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly): >> >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik). >> >And a technology advance sense too (mostly subordinated to political). >> >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts, >> >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo >> >was promptly wasted. >> >> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", >> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. >> >I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when >political reasons lead to great technological advances. >I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances... But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time. >> Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was >> avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable >> booster concept. >> >I wrote also about this in another letter. >Of course, since one of the biggest factors was time, >if something could have been done with existing technology, >it was - it is a safe and fast strategy (it is also >used in Zubrin's Mars Direct project - and justifiably). >Despite that, Apollo did lead to technology developments too. Reply in other letter. >> >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth >> >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar >> >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human >> >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its >> >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen, >> >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology >> >power step. >> >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years. >> >> Agreed. >> >You see, so even we CAN outperform your "historian from 1919". >I also think that that historian was smart enough too, >despite your doubts... ;) >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["678" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 678 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00310 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00290 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VGOQa02538; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:20 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <455fdef5.362562ec@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:20 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there > >> any sooner, > >> you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more > >> during boost. > > > >Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that fast > >and would just get a ticket if you did. Not in my area of the country. >Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum > >speed, that why. What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra cost) to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit. >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["763" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 763 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02238 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02165 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VPDLa22759; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:44 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c054da5.36256304@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:44 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 8:05:00 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and > >> antarctic buy euros, > >> but thats did start a colony? > > > >Geez Kelly, > > > >What's the point? I forgot how this thread started already! I think I was > >trying to point out that it wasn't necessary to go whole hog with a colony > >at first, but I've forgotten where we started. > > > >Lee I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are started, without a practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots of the US is being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it. This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we would go out and found colonies just because. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3834" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "100" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3834 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03418 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03401 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XSZa19214 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:16 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <168f5901.362562e8@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:16 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 12:03:54 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote: >>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically >>toxic >>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. >>> >>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs >need it >>just >>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in >>diffusion. >>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found >>roving >>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's >>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty >>or >>>clayey. >> >>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said >>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a >super- >>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules. > >I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were >"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide >whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests >succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the others.. The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food" samples, and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and photosynthetic life. But no organic mater. So after a lot of heated debate they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic mater. Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the organic detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it. More fearce debate.--- >>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad. >>> >>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in >>quantity >>>- >>>and no shielding stops them. >> >>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad. > >And you can't shield against neutrinos anyway. True, but why bother trying? >>>So I think the threat is overblown. >>> >>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien >>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we >>are >>>to >>>any exobiological entities. >> >>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats. > >The most devestating diseases known (almost without exception) all come >from other creatures - eg, AIDs from monkeys, possibly CJD from sheep (then >to cows). > >Obviously, the reason they are so deadly is that our bodies have never >encountered them before, so the immune system doesn't realise, or can't >stop the new virii/bacteria. >The question is, how alien would you expect these virii to be - it's >possible that they are too alien to affect us in the slightest, and it is >also technically possible that they might be almsot exactly the same as >some we encounter now, so our body can deal with them... However, far more >likely that they will be partly alien, but also partly familiar. > >It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is >why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases, >which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy. > >The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come >from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new >hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the >alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood >cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for us. > >And considering we can't stop earth-born virii, or some bacteria, the >chances of us being able to develop and deploy a vaccine or cure for these >alien diseases are slim to none. Generally agree. >Andrew West. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4728" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:11" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "105" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05901 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA05875; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 7YEDa02083; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:11 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <33210118.362562e3@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:11 EDT In a message dated 10/12/98 11:37:17 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that drive > > them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture, psychology, > > or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would be > > like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every > > century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make it >up > > in volume. > >Considering that you don't even demonstrate a basic understanding >of other cultures, Kelly, claiming that we know everything there >is to know about sociology is pretty arrogant. There can easily >be fundamentally new societies, cultures, psychologies, and >economics because we can barely model any of these things well, >and the models all have some very basic assumptions that will be >valid only in an Earthly environment. We don't have anything >as powerfully predictive of society as Newton's laws are >predictive of mechanics. economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply across species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene work, isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities like music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term (dictatortships lack productivity to compete long term). So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that would alter things. > > > In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > > >Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that > > science > > >is > > >dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by > > >trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem >to > > >agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the > > same > > >applies to all the sciences. > > > > Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn > > anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong. > > Neutons laws of gravity still work fine. > >There are some implicit assumptions behind life on Earth that >won't be true in space. > >For example, on the surface of the Earth the materials needed to >support life (oxygen, water, food) are basically laying around >ready for anyone to take and use. A self-sustaining biosphere >exists more or less independently of humans to renew these things >(although humans have been interfering more and more with that >ability). > >In space, you have to bring or make everything you'll need for >life support -- air, water, and food. Any self-sustaining living >environment will require labor to make or import these >essentials; there won't be a self-sustaining environment that >makes these things for the people who live in it without lots of >work from them. Actually humans can't live without artificial work. Our food is grown in very artificial eco-spheres that don't self propigate (farms). Our water is all processed through artificial purification. Enough thats its ben argued that it would save us trouble and expense to just close the water cycles of our cities and recycle everything rather then dump and import new. Air is partially artificial given our poplution problems. A space colony would be more artificial then living in a city, but its a mater of degree not kind. >On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe, >because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to >maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having >to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make >all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce >some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that >society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models >that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't >produce a social organization different than what has existed in >history? This is a little silly. You might sell bottled air at the docks, and maybe add municiple air charges to the taxes. But people will be no more likely to refuse someone the rigt to breath thier air then they will to walk on a public street. Now vagrant may get exported just like they do from many cities. But again thats not a fundemental change in any sence. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4752" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:49:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "124" "Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4752 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03494 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA03467 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DHQa02316 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:47 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <3260edcc.362562cb@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:47 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> >> >[...] >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government >> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization > >> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late >> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization. >> >> >> >Possibly, but you must start from something. >> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me. >> >> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like >> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space. >> >So what would you consider a start? >Building a viable starship from scratch? What would I consider the start of manned use of space? Commercial craft going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way. A commercial, profitable, space station. The comsats are a far bigger step then Apollo. So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying). Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived. >> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly >> >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will >> >> >be one-way... >> >> >> >> Not likely. ;) >> >> >> >Not likely what? >> >> That it will settle our perennial quarrel. >> >So I suspected. You are sinking my last hopes... ;-) Mawa ha ha!! Drowned biold hope on a spit... :)' >> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team >> >> and abondon them there to die. >> >> >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda! >> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not >> >to understand that! >> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-)) >> >> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give >> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever >> after the missions over. ;) >> >I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing >to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission >meets the acceptability criteria. Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed. As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer. No, they don't count. You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on camera for the ten secounds of fame. Its the criteria of those that fund, and the society that supports it that counts. I don't know about over in your area, but in the west its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for a good cause. >> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization >> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed >> >> on Earthly colonization projects. >> >> >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different, >> >interplanetary-space society. >> >> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental >> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics. >> >Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been >already discussed by others on the list), my main point was >that that "quite different interplanetary-space society" >will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes >toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound >(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different >than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" - >hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward >interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them. I tend to be sispicious of that. Its assumed that just because people are in space their society will be basically and radically different somehow. So far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past couple milenia. So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or - not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any forceable future. >That is not the question of "new laws". >Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider >a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite >reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria", >like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects. >Not speaking about the fact that in those times >there even were no fashion shows in Paris... Oh, yeah. If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh line, and not colonies. >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2152" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2152 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03524 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA03473 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RHQa02317 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:05 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <1f350726.362562dd@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:05 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >>>>====== >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will >> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter >> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that. >> >> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. >> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too. >> >Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so >small that there is no real danger even when the container fails. >It will be another thing with larger amounts. >Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers >on highways is a proof that we can make and transport >antimatter in bulk... Well yeah I can see the public geting a bit upset if we start creating and storing tens of tons of anti particals in our starships Bose-Enstine condesit tank. Especial if we do it in low Earth orbit. ;) >[...] >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet >> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat >> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent >> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. >> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing >> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your >> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift >> costs are about nil. >> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water, >appropriate temperature, base-building materials... Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space (water, ore, air subcomponents) spining for grav isn't hard. Probably no real chance of finding a planet with 1 g, right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["262" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 262 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03212 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03186 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HDBa29193 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:38 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <22f20fda.362562fe@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:38 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 5:38:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> And that's where space-tourism comes in. > > > >The Japanese are already designing hotels in space... > > > >Lee So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1576 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04322 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 TAA04263 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UKRa02341 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:47 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:47 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 4:16:40 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Andrew wrote: > >>It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is >>why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases, >>which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy. > >Of course this balance has evolved over milions of years. On another planet >we are likely to be totally out of balance. And the microbes will flare and whipe us out, bad for both them and us. (We're just not good hosts.) ;) >>The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come >>from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new >>hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the >>alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood >>cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for >us. > >But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, >they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a >numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. >I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most >badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far simpler task. >Timothy Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5923" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:00" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "155" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5923 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06626 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06589 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AARa02328 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:00 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <553f12fd.362562d8@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:00 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 10:34:17 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> > It must of course start from building >> >> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons. >> >> >> >> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some >> >> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for >> >> our own reasons . >> >> >> >First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully >> >automated without human supervision, and will not without >> >real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology. >> >> Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement. >> >Maybe not, but it will help significantly... ..it will help significantly is the understatment of the century in regards to Nano-tech. ;) >> >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human >> >habitat in space", and rather large for that. >> >How to build one without any prior experience? >> >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be >> >that going to another star? >> >> Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate >> and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be. >> >But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat >capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years >(which by today's standards is close to "permanent"), >in complete isolation from any help from outside. >We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space, >not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability >and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were >hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems). >I do not think one can build a starship from scratch >WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually >working in relative isolation for tens of years >(or at least several years). >Till now we have only a little experience with habitats >for several people that can work for several months >on near-earth orbit. Leakage rates over decades are a big issue, but atmosphere and water recycling aer much more straight forward. I agree that we wouldn't put together and launch a star ship without building and testing the hab ring for a couple years, but testing for decades wouldn't be nessisary. No more nessisary then pre testing a bridge for decades before we build it and open it to the public. >> Size and weight being real biggees. That fact we probably couldn't >> make it work being a better one. >> Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly >> self sufficent. >> >It depends on the time scale, I think. Not within the time scale of years. >[...] >> >True, but we should START going in the first place. >> >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step, >> >we made two steps back. >> >> Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs >> in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay >> for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have >> viciously defended. >> >You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy >to use as much of already proved technology rather than make >all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology >progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket, >which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest) >as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient >as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly >lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know, >none is preserved (even rusted). True the Sat-Vs were great heavy boosters for their day, but none could be built and used today (even the tech to build the parts is long gone). So all in all its pretty much a step that went no where, thou it did convince the world we could go if we wanted. (But it convinced them it could only be done at collosal cost). >> >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling, >> >and not always ahead. >> >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders >> >will build the necessary space infrastructure. >> >> Big agree. >> >Kelly, I start to worry - who will quarrel on the list >if we two start to agree on so many issues? ;-)) '=( Ooo, good thought! ;) >> >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating >> >(for Sagan). >> >> Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space >> exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment >> to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine >> for robots and science probes. >> >That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space >exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his >other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus). >He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that, >but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them. That is strange. He threw fits at space comercialization conferences, and almost always argued against maned programs. I can't figure it. >However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea" >of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly >USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration, >as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance. >He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead... Really, I forwarded reports related to that, and I know folks in ISS were never happy to have to add all te extra costs and hassel of adding Russia in. >[...] >> >I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet >> >around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will >> >be either inhabitable, or deadly. >> >> Thanks. >> >Again, what with our quarrels? ;-) I'm sorry. :'( >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2398" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "20:43:39" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "50" "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2398 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29210 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29176 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11447 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA09520; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13861.28523.637469.358322@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com> References: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > economics is a science with understood laws and rules that > even apply across species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't > well researched, but is a reflection of the structure of our > minds, which excluding extensive gene work, isn't likely to > change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it > roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring > trivialities like music art etc falls into a couple major > groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) which have existed for a > few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of law > based, probably democratic society will dominate long term > (dictatortships lack productivity to compete long term). Perhaps you've heard the saying "The first step to knowledge is to know how much you don't know." Economics can't make useful predictions; the models used in economics are completely artificial and unrealistic. Psychology can't make useful predictions either -- even if it is that the human mind will remain unchanged in the future (very doubtful, considering the increasing use of automated aids to thought), psychology is nowhere near understanding how the mind works. As for social change, any society looks like any other as long as you use a vague enough description. To say that a future society will share aspects with historical ones is not the same as saying that it will work exactly like any particular historical society. > So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major > changes that would alter things. I think your inability to see such possibilities comes from your lack of understanding, not to mention some apparently substantial misunderstandings, of fields like economics, psychology, and sociology. > Actually humans can't live without artificial work. This is only true recently, and only because there are more humans on the planet than an unmaintained ecology can support. In fact, many of our environmental problems stem from a fundamental belief that things like air, water, and food just sort of fall into our laps, ingrained from times when there were less than a few million humans on the planet. In space, you don't just have to work to prevent from destroying the environment that sustains you; you have to create it from scratch and be involved in every aspect of maintaining it, which isn't the way things are on Earth. From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["922" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 922 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06111 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06094 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KJTa02083 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:19 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <211b9ff6.36257263@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:19 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 8:45:49 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > >> Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just >> don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too >> frightening to contemplate. >> >> Lee > >Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties, >always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown, >NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You >can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG >omelet... > > >/Bjorn One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't turned on. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1985" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:22" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1985 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06232 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06217 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XWPa19214 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:22 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <29672117.36257266@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:22 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 4:15:47 AM, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 5:59 PM >> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl >> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. >> >>And there is a big bootstrap problem: >>space mining is impractical without developed human >>space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure >>is impossible without space mining... >> >>-- Zenon > >I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is >overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive" to launch that much >raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least. >Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet >those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial >outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a >starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe >very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further >facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of >infrastructure). > >Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing and >able to: >(a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed >(b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns > >which has been mentioned before on this list. > >Chris Walker Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of seting it up, you could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But by then the mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a mine, that does nothing but support itself. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["657" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 657 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06303 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06285 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BPQa18750 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:25 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <7cbf7323.36257269@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:25 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 10:53:40 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >[...] >> >> However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine >> could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the current >> generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic. >> Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry >> converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities >> somewhere off-planet >> >See, Kelly, you have another niche for >the solar power generators in space! NOt on my plants!! ;) Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1383" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:11" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1383 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06365 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA06336 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NHHa02343 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:11 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <93fd9619.3625725b@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:11 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 6:47:35 PM, david@playlink.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:13 PM >> Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. >> >> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no >> long term >> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not >> be >> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major >> space >> colonization that would support something like our starship project. >> >> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in >> it has >> droped a lot in the last decade. >> >Well, it depends on your definition of long-term and short-term. There >have been companies in the past that have supported research with no >immediate or obvious financial gain. True, the late bell labs was famed for that (and the stagering quantity of Nobel prizes that policy aquired for it). > >Also, my timeline postulated the existence of zero-g manufacturing. >That, and a growing space infrastructure of private labs and tourist >facilities would be good customers. Zero-G manufacturing is a good hook, and it might grow to a level that would demand enough ore to start up a space mining industry - I hope. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1409" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1409 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06419 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06390 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2SASa22057 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:41 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:41 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 5:13:27 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Kelly & Kelly wrote: > >>Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long term >>investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be >>economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space >>colonization that would support something like our starship project. >> >>Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has >>droped a lot in the last decade. >> >>Kelly >> >>Kelly > >Your alter ego is surfacing ;)) I never told you I am clones? I was sure one of us remembered. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) > >Maybe a shortterm profit can be generated by selling exclusive rights of >mining the first few asteroids to those that will be there first. (This is >a probably a bit too easy, but I guess you catch my drift.) Right now space >is supposed to be from everybody, but clearly that doesn't work if >economical advantages are to be made. Exclusive rights might work, but only if their was a demand for the product. I still think low cost transport down is the key. Earth is the eventual market for whatever is made in space. Somehow we have to get product down to market. Assuming you had energy in electric form to power steam rockets to orbit. How much power per pound launched wold it take to lift a cargo craft? >Timothy Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1158" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "53" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1158 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06492 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06481 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VKRGa02539; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:36 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <3de79798.36257274@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:36 EDT In a message dated 10/13/98 7:03:28 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be > >> no long term > >> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be > >> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space > >> colonization that would support something like our starship project. > >> > >> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest > >> in it has > >> droped a lot in the last decade. > > > >True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on > >the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes > >into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that > >would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing, > >tourism, etc. > > > >As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe > >someone should add it to the web site? > > > >Lee You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the '80's when I was still at JSC. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1181" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1181 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06771 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06749 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VLRa07909 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:38 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <39757bee.36257276@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:38 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 10:54:30 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long >> > term investments. Also without a large scale market, mining would not be >> > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space >> > colonization that would support something like our starship project. >> > >> > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest >> > in it has droped a lot in the last decade. >> >> True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on >> the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes >> into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that >> would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing, >> tourism, etc. >> >> As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe >> someone should add it to the web site? >> >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? > >-- Zenon As far as I know no one is maintaining it. If I had access I'ld fix some of the links. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7852" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "385" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7852 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06139 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06118 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OHHa02302 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:16 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <14ff9066.36257260@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:16 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:07 PM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: KellySt@aol.com > >To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >Date: Tuesday, 13 October 1998 13:23 > >Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs > > > > > >>> > >>>Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it > >>could > >>>get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten > >times > >>more > >>>they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses > >>CH4/LOX > >>>but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get > >Isp > >>~ > >>>+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the > >>neighbours > >>>getting such technology, can we? > >> > >>These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you > >don't > >>get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy > >story > >>echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators. > >> > >The Isps are legit. They're possible because of the tri-propellent approach > >they use. NO you can't get that much energy out of chemical reactions. Tri propelant has been studies, and can save tank space, but not get you 600 isp! >But as you say they're un-necessary for cost-reductions in launch > >costs. What's needed is a reusable vehicle/s with low overheads and lots of > >business... Agreed > >>On the other hand there are some commercial research programs that are > >>building and testing commercial launchers that could do similarly > >spectacular > >>cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a > >>market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to > >operate > >>a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then > >>technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide > >>launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty. > >>>> > >If only NASA had undertaken the Mars/Moon/LEO program in the 70s, and > >half-a-trillion bucks hadn't been blown on Vietnam. They were interested, but no one else was. Apollo was a race with the Russians, it was considered silly to keep racing after you won. >>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically > >>toxic > >>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value. > >>> > >>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need > >it > >>just > >>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in > >>diffusion. > >>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't > >found > >>roving > >>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's > >>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably > >salty > >>or > >>>clayey. > >> > >>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The > >said > >>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a > >super- > >>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules. > >> > >Like I said there's no evidence for any such reactions. The guys who > >research the cause of the those Viking results ultimately found no evidence > >of super-oxides, especially since they're photochemically unstable. > >> > >> > >>>> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book > >>>> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is > >>rusting > >>>> > >>>> >around the US. > >>>> > > >>> > >>>Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do > >with > >>the > >>>Shuttles and the old Saturns. > >> > >>Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal. > >> > >Stephen actually researched it and you'd be surprised what's still possible. Authours "Researching" such topics is a slippery term, and one often that is used to cove much poetic lisence. ;) >I was expressing my frustration with the whole NASA approach. > >> > >>>> > >>>> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish > >>>> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure. > >>>> > >>>> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. > >>Also > >>>> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I > >mean > >>it > >>>> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter > >ton > >>of > >>>> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber. > >>> > >>>Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced > >>magnetic > >>>materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and > >high-Tc > >>>super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy! > >> > >> ?! Fusion needs none of those. > >> > >!? You sure? I've been watching fusion research fora while and that's the > >kind of thing they're talking about. Really practical fusion needs to get > >away from bulky magnetics and needs smart plasma control. Thats the oppinion of the current DOE project team, not of many other academic and commercial fusion researchers. In many cases the relyence on super conductors in the designs was considered a critical failure, and one dooming the desighns to gigantic and useless scales. Simple copper winding inside the rad shields (superconductors don't like rad so then have to be kept way away from the plasma) were sound to much more effective. Assuming of course you use a magnetic compresion and confinement system, personally I like Bussards voltage compresion systems. ;) >>>> > >>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad. > >>> > >>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in > >>quantity > >>>- > >>>and no shielding stops them. > >> > >>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad. > >> > >In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic > >reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other? Even the sun doesn't put out enough neutrinos to bother anyone. > >>>There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter - > >>>weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for > >>>centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No. > >> > >>They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of > >them > >>have proven very deadly. > >> > >Such as? Though you may be right, I have trouble seeing just how. Some > >people want to stop a Mars Sample Return on the basis that Mars might have > >life. Personally I think the risk is lower than paranoia imagines. But the stakes are very very high if your wrong. > >>>So I think the threat is overblown. > >>> > >>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly > >alien > >>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we > >>are > >>>to > >>>any exobiological entities. > >> > >>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats. > >> > >Typical. Always something I miss. If it's fruit "bats" they might still be > >close[ish] relatives. Some say they're primates. > >> > >>>Adam > >> > >>Kelly > >> > >Adam > > > >PS > >Engine performance... if it's a fusion system we're talking about then most > >studies say 0.1 g would be amazing, unless it's pulse using BIG bombs. High > >Isp fusion usually involves low thrust levels and low accelerations. We're > >talking 0.01 - 0.001 g, or worse. I think we might find ways of doing > >better, but 0.25 g would be great. Higher is getting into the ridiculous. > > > >Really high accelerations [+100 g] becomes possible with externally > >propelled systems, NOT with fusion or antimatter drives. > > > >Adam The Bussard systems allow far higher thrust to weight ratios. See the web site for details and refs. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1465" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1465 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06315 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06289 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QCRa18748 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:33 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <30a6181e.36257271@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:33 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: >I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer >in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization >even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the >galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion >required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same >evolutionary track. >Best Regards, >Nels Lindberg Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't know how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes. Kelly >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > >> L. Parker wrote: >> > >> > Chris, >> > >> > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the >> > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which >> > is more fit... >> >> Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done >> nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and >> they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house >> and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) >> >> Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at >> us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly >> nasty way. >> >> Kyle R. Mcallister >> From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["974" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:59:29" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "27" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 974 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA03146 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03140 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante15.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante15.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.41]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id XAA22390 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante15.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id XAA58728 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <30a6181e.36257271@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: > > >I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer > >in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization > >even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the > >galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion > >required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same > >evolutionary track. > >Best Regards, > >Nels Lindberg > > Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more > advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't know > how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes. > > Kelly Could you please explain how modern physical theory predicts FTL? I was under the impression that this was on the top of the list of things Not Allowed Best Regards Nels From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["865" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:01:30" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 865 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17316 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (yj1XDAU6EQYgGQ9Xx8B0ioMjSJ+CAOs4@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA17264 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id KAA28859 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:01:30 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <001601bdf7d2$e5d0c860$2d5b31cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: Starship Design Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:01:30 +0200 (MET DST) On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Bjorn, > > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live" > > terran planet the more I wanna go there... > > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some alien sea > while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly.... > > Lee Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other people will, after all you can do a lot of research in a few days if you know what you're looking for... Maybe if the first ones to go are willing to make that sacrifice the ppl coming next can protect themselves. /Bjorn PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly more worthwhile??? From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2363" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:27:15" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2363 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23756 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA23750 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA19257; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:16:04 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810151016.LAA19257@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47WHLB2K>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:24:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa Cc: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:27:15 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 4:57 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > >"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense. OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when I rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something really cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible", due to the expense, etc. >Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism, >will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller. >Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate >space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact >on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly >to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based >astronomers and radio-astronomers...). > >-- Zenon Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as the satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat, and the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms network (for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company directors, etc. It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of interstellar travel. In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will plough its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may not be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company decides that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its lunar hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, wouldn't it simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial interests, rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism, but perhaps no investment that we can make use of. Chris Walker From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2222" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "12:19:37" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2222 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29974 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA29960 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA21889 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:09:35 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810151109.MAA21889@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47WHLCBH>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:18:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:19:37 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 11:27 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again > >>L. Parker wrote: > >> > >> Chris, > >> > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species > which > >> is more fit... > I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES subscribe to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved to the point where they can travel between the stars. OK, so we don't know what alien life is like, but I'm pretty sure that it has to fight to survive and adapt in whatever environment it lives in - just like we do. Seems likely to be a universal constant. >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) > >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly >nasty way. > >Kyle R. Mcallister Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said "better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth). To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid doing so: (a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like habitats that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and (b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets. However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence my "survival of the fittest" response. Chris Walker From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2322" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:03:54" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "60" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2322 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05485 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (gShxJjlul9nzBCKfZpZWF4tTFqmLZxn+@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05478 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id OAA12407 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:03:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <211b9ff6.36257263@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:03:54 +0200 (MET DST) On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/14/98 8:45:49 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: > > >On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > > >> Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just > >> don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too > >> frightening to contemplate. > >> > >> Lee > > > >Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties, > >always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown, > >NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You > >can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG > >omelet... > > > > > >/Bjorn > > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. If > they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If the > ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't > turned on. > > Kelly > Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are generally sound... As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this: Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in 10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew. (I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals is it not?) Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating new star system... I know which one I'd chose... SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!! /Bjorn From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["797" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:21:25" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 797 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16978 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:25:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA16867 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA16332; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:21:25 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151321.OAA16332@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:21:25 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > >Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that > >fast and would just get a ticket if you did. > > Not in my area of the country. > > >Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum > >speed, that why. > > What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra > cost) to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit. > Kelly, it is the other way round: you are designing a ship for optimal work at 1g (e.g., the best fuel efficiency, reliability, etc.). And then - bingo - it appears that such designed ship is capable to achieve 10g for some time (albeit with less efficiency). OK? -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["487" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:25:46" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "19" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 487 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17266 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:29:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA17257 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA16338; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:25:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151325.OAA16338@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:25:46 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/14/98 10:54:30 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> > >> As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe > >> someone should add it to the web site? > >> > >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? > > > As far as I know no one is maintaining it. > If I had access I'ld fix some of the links. > Too bad. How come? Dave? -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1321" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:08:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "38" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1321 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25172 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:12:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA25161 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16369; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:08:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151408.PAA16369@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:08:21 +0100 (MET) > From: Bjorn Nilsson > > On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > > Bjorn, > > > > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling > > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there... > > > > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some > > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly... > > Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was > certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other > people will, > No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn. He even once stated that it will be better to kill you rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed... > after all you can do a lot of research in a few days if you > know what you're looking for... Maybe if the first ones to go are willing > to make that sacrifice the ppl coming next can protect themselves. > > PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why > shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly > more worthwhile??? > Again, because Kelly will stop you... Maybe, instead of quarreling with Kelly again on this issue, I finally can sit down comfortably in my computer chair and watch you quarreling with him? ;-)) Good luck, -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2128" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:21:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "47" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2128 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27864 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:25:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA27798 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16382; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:21:03 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:21:03 +0100 (MET) > From: Bjorn Nilsson > > On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > [..] > > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group > > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. > > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. > > If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam > > isn't turned on. > > > Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly > eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are > generally sound... > Agreed - just another argument for one-way missions. How come I did not used it during my past quarrels with Kelly? > As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this: > > Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in > 10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew. > (I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals > is it not?) > > Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they > would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station > and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be > around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at > least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the > mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would > be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the > scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their > remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could > live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating > new star system... I know which one I'd chose... > > SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!! > Exactly (some of) my points during my past quarrels with Kelly. I even produced detailed time schedules for various types of missions. However, he was then adamant on the issue. Now, the stage is yours, Bjorn! -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2231" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:44:41" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "48" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2231 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08414 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA08398 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:44:41 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2F4@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:44:41 -0400 > ---------- > From: Walker, Chris[SMTP:Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 6:27 AM > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of > the > investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will > plough > its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or > may not > be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that > might > happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company > decides > that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its > lunar > hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does > this > though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, > wouldn't it > simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial > interests, > rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space > tourism, but > perhaps no investment that we can make use of. > Well, its interests are likely to be financial. If a space tourism company winds up with increasing demand, first for on-orbit facilities, and then for lunar facilities, they may find developing space-based mining (or other industries) economical. Then, when someone else comes along and wants to build, say, an intra-solar-system vehicle construction yard, the tourism company may find it in its economic interest to sell the products of their mines to this company. I'm not saying this is what will happen - just showing one possibility. Granted, if you were this tourism company, you might not help other tourism companies, but why not? If you don't sell to them, they'll get their resources from Earth anyway, like you did originally. So sell to them at a high enough cost to make a tidy profit but a low enough cost to keep them from buying from Earth. There are current industries on Earth where competitors sell each other products. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1813" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:38:46" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "39" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1813 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05900 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA05892 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:38:47 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2F3@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:38:46 -0400 > ---------- > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 9:25 AM > Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > > >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? > > > > > As far as I know no one is maintaining it. > > If I had access I'ld fix some of the links. > > > Too bad. How come? > > Dave? > Unfortunately, it's my personal account on the machine and I don't have the ability to create other accounts. The amount of stuff on there is a bit much for anyone with a day job to maintain. I've always felt that perhaps the best option would be for everyone who wants to work on a part of the site to do it at one of the free homepage places (Tripod, Geocities, etc.). Then we could use the original site as more a kind of Table of Contents for all the other subsites. A distributed system would be easier to maintain, because we could each be responsible for a part of it. We would have to make sure that the main site linked to the subsites and the subsites linked back to the mainsite, but that would be easy. More difficult would be maintaining any crosslinks between subsites - but definitely possible, especially with the help of the mailing list. Anyway, we could each take a topic that we're most interested in: i.e., links to official documents, links to "advanced propulsion concepts", information on historical starship research, information on topics like fusion, fission, anti-matter, asteroid belt mining, space tourism, etc. David ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4213" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:06:11" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "86" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4213 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12960 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA12874 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16424; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:06:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151506.QAA16424@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:06:11 +0100 (MET) > From: "Walker, Chris" > > > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > > > >"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense. > > OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when I > rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something really > cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible", > due to the expense, etc. > Granted, I should have been more precise. > >Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism, > >will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller. > >Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate > >space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact > >on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly > >to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based > >astronomers and radio-astronomers...). > > > Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to > generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as the > satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat, and > the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms network > (for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company directors, > etc. > Am I right sensing certain hostility to private industry as expressed in your texts? I think them being private and lining the pockets of their directors is not the issue here. The issue is if their operation in space does forward building interplanetary space infrastructure than can in turn facilitate human settling of the system and possibly make us capable of building a starship if we will seem it reasonable. The pockets of their directors are not especially important here, or rather, a possibility to line appropriately these pockets is a necessary requirement for the industry to be able to exist at all... > It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an > Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of > interstellar travel. > Yes, that was my point, roughly - that the rather Earth-bound "space" indusries, like commsats & the like, and possibly space tourism too, may have little impact on building a space infrastructure needed for eventual starship building (but see the clarification below). > In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the > investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will plough > its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may not > be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might > happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company decides > that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its lunar > hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this > though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, wouldn't it > simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial interests, > rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism, but > perhaps no investment that we can make use of. > Some clarification seems necessary. Namely, I do not postulate to build space infrastructure just for the reason of preparing to build a starship. I simply say that building a starship will not be possible without prior building of such the infrastructure. The infrastructure will be build for quite other purposes, the main of which is to allow humans settling the system, in space colonies and/or on other planets & moons. Thus, I do not expect or demand from space tourism companies to build starship shipyards, but only to put enough people and structure in space so that starting space mines & industry becomes cost effective, for them and for prospective miners. Then it will be no question of *using* these industrial facilities by "anyone else", but the question of paying in cash for their products, which I think the owners will be quite eager to accept. That can start the construction of the infrastructure, provided the tourism companies can & will "grow to such an extent". -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2397" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:20:19" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "68" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2397 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18964 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA18904 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16431; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:20:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151520.QAA16431@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:20:19 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed. > > Huh? > Huh? ;-) > > Again, exactly my point. > > So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-) > > I give up, its not worth the effort... > > > > Are we both talking about Penning traps? > > > It seems so... > > No it doesn't, which is why I asked. > > > You are right, of course, with flash powder. > > But consider the question of scale - > > the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off > > is very tiny as compared with the difference > > between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship... > > No its not, you missed the point. > Ehem, it certainly seems the time to stop this discussion, as we seem to be in the state of total mutual misunderstanding... > > Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form. > > I meant "not real working space drive". > > For me, it can be called "real working space drive" > > only after being tested in space. > > > > > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I > > > specifically stated that it wasn't. > > > > > I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology > > ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very > > beginning was specifically about starhip technology. > > It is in fact good example. Nobody on this list thinks that there is a > workable stardrive already built and tested in space today and that was > neither the original question nor the point of this discussion. The question > was what is likely to be available in fifty years? ACMF, AIMSTAR and VASIMR > all show orders of magnitude improvement over what was state of the art only > a few years ago. As such they are perfect examples of what MAY be possible, > which is where we started. > OK, granted. It is only the problem that for me the distance between your examples (at the stage of their actual development, i.e., say, 70% on paper) and the viable stardrive designs is of some orders of magnitude larger than the distance between today's space engines and these examples. > > Possibly they do. > > But an attempt to do a more precise comparison > > would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more > > precisely than our gueses and speculations here. > > Its been done. > Thanks - nice to hear. Any references? -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1593" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:33:18" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "34" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1593 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23464 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23380 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA04034 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:24:43 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810151524.QAA04034@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47WHLFQ5>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:33:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:33:18 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Levine [SMTP:david@playlink.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 3:45 PM > To: 'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu' > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > Well, its interests are likely to be financial. If a space tourism > company winds up with increasing demand, first for on-orbit facilities, > and then for lunar facilities, they may find developing space-based > mining (or other industries) economical. Then, when someone else comes > along and wants to build, say, an intra-solar-system vehicle > construction yard, the tourism company may find it in its economic > interest to sell the products of their mines to this company. > > I'm not saying this is what will happen - just showing one possibility. > I am hoping this is what will happen. I think it's a reasonable possibility; I just wanted to point out that industry in space may still not give us the investment we wanted for insterstellar travel. Granted, if you were this tourism company, you might not help other tourism companies, but why not? If you don't sell to them, they'll get their resources from Earth anyway, like you did originally. So sell to them at a high enough cost to make a tidy profit but a low enough cost to keep them from buying from Earth. There are current industries on Earth where competitors sell each other products. Agree. But will a tourism company sell enough of its product (ore) to our starship company for us to build an interstellar craft? I don't know how much material this endeavour is meant to require. From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5564" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:00:52" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "131" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5564 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04879 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04858 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA05363; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:50:04 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199810151550.QAA05363@ns0.sky.co.uk> Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <47WHLF82>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:58:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa Cc: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:00:52 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 4:06 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > > From: "Walker, Chris" > > > > > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > > > > > >"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social > sense. > > > > OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when > I > > rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something > really > > cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible", > > due to the expense, etc. > > > Granted, I should have been more precise. > No worries :-) > > >Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism, > > >will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller. > > >Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate > > >space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact > > >on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly > > >to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based > > >astronomers and radio-astronomers...). > > > > > Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to > > generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as > the > > satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat, > and > > the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms > network > > (for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company > directors, > > etc. > > > Am I right sensing certain hostility to private industry > as expressed in your texts? > No! I am certainly not hostile to private industry. Rather, I feel that it is much more likely to progress space industry than the government agencies will, as the latter tend to be more bound by political (and public opinion) constraints than a private company would be. As you allude to below, the private sector is essentially financially driven, and doesn't have to rely nearly so much on public opinion before it can do something useful. As long as there is (muchos) money in doing something, it is more likely to get done. You can sense 'despondency' on my part towards government agencies ;-) > I think them being private > and lining the pockets of their directors is not the issue here. > The issue is if their operation in space does forward building > interplanetary space infrastructure than can in turn facilitate > human settling of the system and possibly make us capable of building > a starship if we will seem it reasonable. > The pockets of their directors are not especially important here, > or rather, a possibility to line appropriately these pockets > is a necessary requirement for the industry to be able to exist > at all... > Big agree! I can see why you thought I was hostile about this from my text, though, after re-reading it. I simply meant it as an example of where the money went, rather than as a rant at the private space industry (which I myself work in). > > It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an > > Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of > > interstellar travel. > > > Yes, that was my point, roughly - that the rather Earth-bound > "space" indusries, like commsats & the like, and possibly > space tourism too, may have little impact on building a space > infrastructure needed for eventual starship building > (but see the clarification below). > > > > In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the > > investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will > plough > > its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may > not > > be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might > > happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company > decides > > that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its > lunar > > hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this > > though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, > wouldn't it > > simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial > interests, > > rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism, > but > > perhaps no investment that we can make use of. > > > Some clarification seems necessary. > > Namely, I do not postulate to build space infrastructure > just for the reason of preparing to build a starship. > I simply say that building a starship will not be possible > without prior building of such the infrastructure. > > The infrastructure will be build for quite other purposes, > the main of which is to allow humans settling the system, > in space colonies and/or on other planets & moons. > Thus, I do not expect or demand from space tourism companies > to build starship shipyards, but only to put enough people > and structure in space so that starting space mines & industry > becomes cost effective, for them and for prospective miners. > Then it will be no question of *using* these industrial facilities > by "anyone else", but the question of paying in cash for their > products, which I think the owners will be quite eager to accept. > That can start the construction of the infrastructure, > provided the tourism companies can & will "grow to such an extent". > > -- Zenon > OK - understood. Chris Walker From VM Thu Oct 15 09:47:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3873" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:35:18" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "103" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3873 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23276 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA23265 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA16519; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:35:18 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151635.RAA16519@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:35:18 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> > >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > >> > >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction > >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust > >> >still wait for breaktroughs. > >> > >> We don't actually need sustained, > >> > >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept > >may lead to a viable starship engine? > > Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No > fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high > enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is > handelable. > > >I doubt it. > > Why? > Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro". For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big "macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load". > >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, > >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about > >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory > >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up > >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. > > The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser > fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built > a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable > it seems reasonable. Its not like > I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something. > OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit. [...] > >> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question > >> >of efficiency, but not only). > >> > >> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space > >> after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load > >> in the area wouldn't change much. > >> > >Just "dumped"? Into what "area"? > >In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation > >only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge > >high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer > >from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium) > >into that huge radiating structure... > >Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible. > > Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs) > scatterd over a 1 AU ring. > I know, I know, thousands of Chevrolets linked together... [..] > >> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and > >> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). > >> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? > >> > >> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. > >> > >I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological > >(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it, > >provided we have the money. > > Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were > crazy enough to write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it. > No, kevlar + metal is not strong enough. Buckytubes are (barely). I still do not see technological & manufacturing ability to build it now, no matter how big check you can underwrite... And the starship is much more hard to build, in my opinion. > >> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", > >> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. > >> > >I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when > >political reasons lead to great technological advances. > >I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances... > > But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time. > Huh? Possibly as concerns the particulars, but the rule itself is well-known since some time... -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 09:54:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["574" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 574 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28456 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28440 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06406 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AXRa22052 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:28 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <22f2763e.3625726c@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:28 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:26 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species >> which is more fit... >> >That is quite possible. >Thus I would rather not count on that hope - >better work hard to become more fit. >And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early... > >-- Zenon I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to all concerned. Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 09:54:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["790" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:30" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 790 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28370 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28345 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06185 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2FLSa03785 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:30 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <232cf836.3625726e@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:30 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 4:15:36 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >L. Parker wrote: >> >> Chris, >> >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which >> is more fit... > >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) > >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly >nasty way. > >Kyle R. Mcallister Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;) Kelly From VM Thu Oct 15 10:02:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2736" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:36:20" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2736 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02697 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02679 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:53:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA01915 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16393; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:36:20 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151436.PAA16393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:36:20 +0100 (MET) > From: "Walker, Chris" > > > From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] > > > >>L. Parker wrote: > > >> > > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species > > >> which is more fit... > > > I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES subscribe > to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved > to the point where they can travel between the stars. OK, so we don't know > what alien life is like, but I'm pretty sure that it has to fight to survive > and adapt in whatever environment it lives in - just like we do. Seems > likely to be a universal constant. > Exactly. I fully agree. > >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done > >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and > >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house > >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) > > > >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at > >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly > >nasty way. > > > Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said > "better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising > other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth). > Yes. And for this reason I think we should not advertise our existence (not speaking about our coordinates in space) before we are firmly established in the whole system (and even then, better we shouldn't). Hence I consider foolish the sending in the past strong signals aimed at other stars, or including a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates of the solar system. I hope that when technology permits, these crafts will be catched in midflight and taken back to Earth. > To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life > when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid > doing so: > > (a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like > habitats that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and > > (b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets. > > However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm > sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we > could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care > about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence > my "survival of the fittest" response. > Exactly. Life is brutal, and the rule scales to interstellar distances too. -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 10:02:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2746" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:20:33" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "64" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2746 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03347 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03315 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:54:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA15626 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA16510; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810151620.RAA16510@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:33 +0100 (MET) > From: "Walker, Chris" > > > From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] > > > >>L. Parker wrote: > > >> > > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species > > >> which is more fit... > > > I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES > subscribe to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they > wouldn't have evolved to the point where they can travel between > the stars. OK, so we don't know what alien life is like, but I'm > pretty sure that it has to fight to survive and adapt in whatever > environment it lives in - just like we do. > Seems likely to be a universal constant. > Exactly. I fully agree. > >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done > >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and > >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house > >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;) > > > >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at > >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly > >nasty way. > > > Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said > "better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising > other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth). > Yes. And for this reason I think we should not advertise our existence (not speaking about our coordinates in space) before we are firmly established in the whole system (and even then, better we shouldn't). Hence I consider foolish the sending in the past strong signals aimed at other stars, or including a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates of the solar system. I hope that when technology permits, these crafts will be catched in midflight and taken back to Earth. > To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life > when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid > doing so: > > (a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like > habitats that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and > > (b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets. > > However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm > sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we > could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care > about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence > my "survival of the fittest" response. > Exactly. Life is brutal, and the rule scales to interstellar distances too. -- Zenon From VM Thu Oct 15 10:10:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1258" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:02:36" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "25" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1258 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10664 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10629 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante25.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante25.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.99]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA51838 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante25.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA100062 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT) A comment on yr post Kelly. > economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply across > species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a > reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene work, > isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it > roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities like > music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) > which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of > law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term (dictatortships > lack productivity to compete long term). > > So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that > would alter things. As for 'major changes that would alter things'. How about fiddling with the human genome. There are several changes I'd like to see made (when/if possible) and it seems that we are heading into a time of ever increasing genetic manipulation. I know that current mores oppose this idea, but those have a way of changing with the times too. In fact, i would predict these changes being made before humanity truly becomes a spacefaring race. Nels From VM Thu Oct 15 10:48:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1041" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:41:33" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "21" "starship-design: administrivia: no more \"administrivia\"" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1041 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10612 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10581; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13862.13261.186331.848115@darkwing.uoregon.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: administrivia: no more "administrivia" Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT) A recent thread in starship-design has contained the word "subscribe" in the first paragraph. Unfortunately this has triggered a feature in Majordomo (our mailing list management software) called "administrivia" that causes such messages to be bounced to the list owner on the assumption the message is a subscription request. I've been approving these to the list as I've seen them, but that often involves a few hours of delay since I only usually read messages to this account during the day. Fortunately this feature is individually configurable in lists so I've turned it off for starship-design. Another feature I'd sort of like to disable is the automatic prepending of "starship-design:" to message subjects. However, some people like that feature. If there's no strong objection, I'll disable the feature; if people really, really like it, I'll leave things as they are. I'll wait until next week to decide, so if you have an opinion, mail it to me (but NOT to the entire list, please) and I'll take it into consideration. From VM Thu Oct 15 13:31:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2340" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "20:45:38" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "48" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2340 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03941 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:48:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA03878 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem665.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.153]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA06066 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:48:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981015204538.0068e6b0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <14ff9eca.36256302@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:45:38 +0100 Kelly, A compilation of two letters: >>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. > >One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set foot >on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld >obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is >very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some >odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why? Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria. And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the spacesuit from becoming a balloon. ==================================================================== >>But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, >>they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a >>numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. >>I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most >>badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? > >They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of >simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as >agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however >only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far >simpler task. Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially compensate for this thermal inconveniance. Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding for the bacteria or small organisms any easier. In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the body itself in response to the intruder. Timothy From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["417" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 417 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01221 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01211 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16747; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:49 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bdf8f9$15247d60$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <211b9ff6.36257263@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:31 -0500 > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence > quarenteen. If > they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the > ship. If the > ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't > turned on. > > Kelly Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1553" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1553 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01202 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01177 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16722; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bdf8f9$0dce2200$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4c054da5.36256304@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:18 -0500 Kelly, > I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are > started, without a > practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots > of the US is > being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it. > > This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we > would go out and > found colonies just because. Ahh, okay. I understand now. And I was pointing out how colonies didn't just "start", they began with fishing camps (an economic justification). Without going into boring historical detail, we are both right, we're just not talking about quite the same thing. In fact, there were "causes" behind most of the colonies. I was just pointing out that they were usually preceded by advanced scouts (the fishermen in most cases, but not all) and were attempting to reach some haven which they had been told was exceptionally attractive. Unfortunately, many of them went off course and ended up settling somewhere besides where they had originally intended, or their "causes" disappeared (frequently political causes) and the colony subsequently foundered. You were just taking exception to fishing camps being considered colonies...which they weren't. Incidentally, the ones that survived were mostly private ventures of one variety or another and although they frequently had difficult times at the beginning they mostly survived because conditions at their landing point were close to ideal and their cause held up. There may be lessons here for would be colonists of the planets and other stars... Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["151" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:28" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01207 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01199 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16738; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:46 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdf8f9$13361ae0$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <22f20fda.362562fe@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:28 -0500 Kelly, > So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac. Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done... Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["564" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 564 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01200 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01185 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16732; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bdf8f9$11e66960$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <88df4399.362562f2@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:26 -0500 Kelly, > spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably > build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back > to market? I don't really know. They (NASA) have tested them, although I don't think the drop was from orbit, I think so far they have just tossed them from high flying aircraft to evaluate their impact performance. Basically it was just an inflatable balloon shaped like a caltrop or a child's jack, very similar to what was used on Mars. Apparently it can soft land a rather large payload very cheaply. Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["274" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 274 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01220 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01210 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16742; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bdf8f9$141f9080$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3de79798.36257274@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:30 -0500 Kelly, > You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space > Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the > '80's when I > was still at JSC. Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link. I will try to find it this weekend. Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["236" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 236 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01269 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01263 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16764; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:52 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bdf8f9$1712dfe0$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Bjorn Nilsson" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:35 -0500 Bjorn, > PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why > shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly > more worthwhile??? Its a "human thing" you wouldn't understand... Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["582" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:33" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 582 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01264 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01257 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16755; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:51 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bdf8f9$160f79a0$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <29672117.36257266@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:33 -0500 Kelly, > Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the > mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly > outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of > seting it up, you > could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But > by then the > mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the > masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a > mine, that does > nothing but support itself. The point at which it all becomes practical ia $100/lb to LEO. Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["486" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 486 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01187 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA01179 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16726; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bdf8f9$10b0a880$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <14ff9eca.36256302@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:24 -0500 Kelly, > One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien > EVER set foot > on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld > obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff > which all is > very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were > found in some > odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why? That one is almost as good as the one that alien nano machines are watching our every move! Lee From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["462" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:34:10" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "15" "starship-design: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 462 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17676 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:38:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA17659 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17252; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:34:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Space Transportation Study Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:34:10 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space > > Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the > > '80's when I was still at JSC. > > Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link. > I will try to find it this weekend. > Did you have in mind the "Commercial Space Transportation Study" at: http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html ? -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["258" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:35:33" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "9" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 258 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17784 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:39:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA17769 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17258; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:35:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810161335.OAA17258@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:35:33 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac. > > Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done... > Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt? -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1128" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:50:49" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "26" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1128 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA20567 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:55:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA20552 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17276; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:50:49 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810161350.OAA17276@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:50:49 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group > > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. > > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the > > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, > > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on. > > Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... > Yes and no ;-) I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn, as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem) for one-way missions. However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions, but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam, and let them perish in space. Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily, it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them to perish in space, it is OK. Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here? -- Zenon From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1156" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:03:46" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "starship-design: Survival of the fittest..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1156 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02771 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA02757 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA20250 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016160346.006929dc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <232cf836.3625726e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Survival of the fittest... Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:03:46 +0100 Hi, Some quotes, that I read sofar: >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly >nasty way. > >Kyle R. Mcallister >Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;) > >Kelly Most species on Earth won't attack others unless they feel threatened or if they need something. This of course isn't some moral plan, but merely a way to minimize damage to oneself and to not needlessly spend time hunting whatever comes in ones way. So it is not unlikely that alien civilizations have a similar attitude. As long as they aren't in any need, or if they don't feel threatened, there is little reason to attack. This works, even while the fittest survive. Regarding needs, an advanced civilization can use pretty much any solar system to get and make what they want, so only if they get real big, they may feel that they need our solar system. And if their civilization is big, then it's hard to believe that they haven't found us yet. After all, life has existed on Earth for a very long time. If they wanted to make use of it, then why wait? Timothy From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["496" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:12:33" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: link: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 496 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02784 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA02770 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA20292 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016161233.006c7e30@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000401bdf8f9$141f9080$e05931cc@lparker> References: <3de79798.36257274@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: link: Space Transportation Study Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:12:33 +0100 To All, >Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link. I will try to find it >this weekend. > >Lee I figured that since you didn't specifiy an addresse, one could easely find it with a search. So I had already searched with "Space Transportation Study", and among other possibly interesting links that came up, this is most likely the one you intend: Commercial Space Transportation Study Web version top-level index http://astp.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html Timothy From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["224" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:54:22" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 224 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03685 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA03605 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA21640 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:54:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016165422.006929dc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Transportation Study Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:54:22 +0100 Zenon wrote: >Did you have in mind the >"Commercial Space Transportation Study" at: >http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html I see, I was too late. Due that pile of SD-mails I had to read first. Timothy From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["351" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "07:41:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 351 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19547 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:46:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA19542 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA04741; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:45:10 -0500 Message-ID: <001101bdf9cb$7bcdbcc0$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <22f2763e.3625726c@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:41:37 -0500 Kelly > I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to > all concerned. No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages from something Arecibo... Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["523" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "08:15:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 523 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23020 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA23015 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA06777; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:19:13 -0500 Message-ID: <001401bdf9d0$3bb25a60$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810161335.OAA17258@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:15:38 -0500 Zenon, > Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt? I do not think you are anymore a specialist in basalt than I am in concrete, umm, bad analogy, I can cast concrete. Well, anyway, basalt is still used in your area of the world for culverts and such and is far superior to concrete for most applications, including use on the moon and in orbit. I simply thought information on it would be more readily available to you than most of the rest of the list. Its not a well known product in the west I'm afraid. From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["252" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "08:15:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "starship-design: RE: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 252 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23008 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA23001 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA06772; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bdf9d0$37ac6280$e05931cc@lparker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Zenon Kulpa" Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: RE: Space Transportation Study Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:15:30 -0500 Zenon, > Did you have in mind the > "Commercial Space Transportation Study" at: > http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html Yes that is it. Thanks, I'm still wading through the 138 email messages I had waiting Friday afternoon! Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["772" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "12:54:54" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 772 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05744 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05735 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante03.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante03.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.5]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA54078 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:55 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante03.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA95844 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <001101bdf9cb$7bcdbcc0$e05931cc@lparker> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Lee, I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio frequencies, the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies. Nels On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Kelly > > > I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to > > all concerned. > > No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they > rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at > even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages > from something Arecibo... > > Lee > > From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1538" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:22" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1538 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24640 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24633 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VWCa04680 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:22 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <608e6cbd.36296056@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:22 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 1:43:14 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: >A comment on yr post Kelly. > >> economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply across >> species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a >> reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene work, >> isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it >> roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities like >> music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) >> which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of >> law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term (dictatortships >> lack productivity to compete long term). >> >> So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that >> would alter things. > >As for 'major changes that would alter things'. How about fiddling with >the human genome. There are several changes I'd like to see made (when/if >possible) and it seems that we are heading into a time of ever increasing >genetic manipulation. I know that current mores oppose this idea, but >those have a way of changing with the times too. In fact, i would >predict these changes being made before humanity truly becomes a >spacefaring race. >Nels That could change some of the factors of our culture (much, if not most, of our natures seems genetic) or do nothing depending on what you alter. What do you want to change? Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["2016" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" "<90b12550.36296062@aol.com>" "47" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2016 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24678 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24655 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PPDa18748 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:34 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <90b12550.36296062@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:34 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 2:03:31 AM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: >On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> >> In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: >> >> >I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer >> >in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization >> >even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the >> >galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion >> >required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same >> >evolutionary track. >> >Best Regards, >> >Nels Lindberg >> >> Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more >> advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't know >> how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes. >> >> Kelly > Could you please explain how modern physical theory predicts FTL? >I was under the impression that this was on the top of the list of things >Not Allowed >Best Regards >Nels The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects). Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling). Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'. Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4931" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:39" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4931 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24677 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24653 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IETa02539 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:39 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:39 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 11:44:47 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction >> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust >> >> >still wait for breaktroughs. >> >> >> >> We don't actually need sustained, >> >> >> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept >> >may lead to a viable starship engine? >> >> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No >> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high >> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is >> handelable. >> >> >I doubt it. >> >> Why? >> >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro". >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load". Its all a mater of scale. Scale wise the power to weight ratio of a 1G starships not that much more then that of a hot sports car able to accell at nearly 1G. The power of the vibrations should be equally handelable. >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. >> >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser >> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable >> it seems reasonable. Its not like >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something. >> >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit. So were liquid rocket engine designs in the late 1800's. Obviously nothing on the shelf is going to do the job. So we need to figure out what can get from paper to hardware in the desired time. >[...] >> >> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question >> >> >of efficiency, but not only). >> >> >> >> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space >> >> after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load >> >> in the area wouldn't change much. >> >> >> >Just "dumped"? Into what "area"? >> >In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation >> >only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge >> >high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer >> >from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium) >> >into that huge radiating structure... >> >Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible. >> >> Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs) >> scatterd over a 1 AU ring. >> >I know, I know, thousands of Chevrolets linked together... Hey, a few hundred gigwatts here, a few hundred gigwatts there, after a while your talking real power. ;) Besides we neeed a large baseline emmiter to keep the beem in ffocus over the desired ranges. >[..] >> >> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and >> >> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes). >> >> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years? >> >> >> >> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth. >> >> >> >I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological >> >(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it, >> >provided we have the money. >> >> Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were >> crazy enough to write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it. >> >No, kevlar + metal is not strong enough. Buckytubes are (barely). I used to hang with a guy at JSC who was dippy for skyhooks. Kevlar is strong enough, you just need a big taper on your teather. You could do it with aluminum if you were crazy enough. (Course the geo sync part would look like a samall moon...) >I still do not see technological & manufacturing ability >to build it now, no matter how big check you can underwrite... >And the starship is much more hard to build, in my opinion. > > >> >> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", >> >> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible. >> >> >> >I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when >> >political reasons lead to great technological advances. >> >I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances... >> >> But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time. >> >Huh? Possibly as concerns the particulars, but the rule >itself is well-known since some time... Agreed. > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["294" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:50" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24700 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24694 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ITNa22759 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:50 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:50 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:49 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac. > > > >Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done... > > > >Lee Casting Basalt?!! Little hot for my liking! Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2630" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:30" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2630 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24654 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24647 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KSBa13873 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:30 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <105780b1.3629605e@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:30 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 7:21:29 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >> One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group >> survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. If >> they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If the >> ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't >> turned on. >> >> Kelly >> > >Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly >eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are >generally sound... > >As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this: > >Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in >10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew. >(I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals is it >not?) > >Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they >would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station >and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be >around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at >least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the >mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would >be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the >scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their >remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could >live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating >new star system... I know which one I'd chose... > >SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT >AGAIN!!! Assuming a 10-12 year trip time. Your 30 year olds get their in their early 40's. By late 40's they would be finishing up and ready to come home. They'ld likely get home by the time they reach early '60's and spend a decade or three pouring over their data and heading research projects into the data. In your senario they would be stuck in the starship for40-60 years. Their exploration gear expended, their ship systems runing down, and the increasingly aged crew working harder and harder to keep runing the increasing worn out ship systems. Assuming the ship can functino that long, and the declining suplies and crew can keep being stretched. (Your talking about a ship designd for a 30-40 year service life, being pushed to a 50-80 year service life, and suplies stretched to twice their designed length. Folks could get very hungry. And systems very short of spare parts.) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["475" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:02" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 475 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24742 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA24731 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2CETa02316 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:02 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:02 EDT In a message dated 10/17/98 2:58:54 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: > Lee, >I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio frequencies, >the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter >than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply >unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star >that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies. >Nels I remember reading that as well. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1125" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1125 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24758 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24738 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GHTa02329 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:55 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <326f0ffa.36296077@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:55 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 6:38:09 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the > >> mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly > >> outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of > >> seting it up, you > >> could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But > >> by then the > >> mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the > >> masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a > >> mine, that does > >> nothing but support itself. > > > >The point at which it all becomes practical ia $100/lb to LEO. > > > >Lee But, if it costs you $10 billino to lift the mineing gear and get it working, but you only need enough stuff to equal $4 billion in lift costs. You wouldn't launch the mine. As lift costs drop. Low tens (may be singles) of dollars per pound to orbit is now technically possible if their is enough demand. So lifting all the mass from Earth could save you so much lift costs it would save more then the mine could. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["581" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 581 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24752 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA24735 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XAUa02341 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:58 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:58 EDT In a message dated 10/17/98 7:46:49 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly > > > >> I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to > >> all concerned. > > > >No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they > >rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at > >even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages > >from something Arecibo... > > > >Lee Undetectable by us, but then detecting the woble of stars with planets, or seeing the plants was proven impossible too. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1989" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1989 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24784 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24778 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JEDa17824 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:13 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:13 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 10:05:23 AM, david@playlink.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 9:25 AM >> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. >> >> > >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site? >> > > >> > As far as I know no one is maintaining it. >> > If I had access I'ld fix some of the links. >> > >> Too bad. How come? >> >> Dave? >> >Unfortunately, it's my personal account on the machine and I don't have >the ability to create other accounts. > >The amount of stuff on there is a bit much for anyone with a day job to >maintain. I've always felt that perhaps the best option would be for >everyone who wants to work on a part of the site to do it at one of the >free homepage places (Tripod, Geocities, etc.). Then we could use the >original site as more a kind of Table of Contents for all the other >subsites. A distributed system would be easier to maintain, because we >could each be responsible for a part of it. We would have to make sure >that the main site linked to the subsites and the subsites linked back >to the mainsite, but that would be easy. More difficult would be >maintaining any crosslinks between subsites - but definitely possible, >especially with the help of the mailing list. Anyway, we could each >take a topic that we're most interested in: i.e., links to official >documents, links to "advanced propulsion concepts", information on >historical starship research, information on topics like fusion, >fission, anti-matter, asteroid belt mining, space tourism, etc. > >David >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Thats a good idea, we could also post parts in our personal account spaces. (I once offered to put most of the stuff I worked up for LIT on one of my AOL accounts.) I do worry about sections disappering as people come and go from the group or change accounts thou. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1466" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1466 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24718 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24712 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NTDa29193 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <1eb3265e.3629606a@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:42 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 8:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group >> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. >> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the >> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, >> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on. >> >> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... >> >Yes and no ;-) >I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn, >as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem) >for one-way missions. > >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions, >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam, >and let them perish in space. >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily, >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them >to perish in space, it is OK. >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here? > >-- Zenon I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. In the other we ask for volunteers to die for buracratic convenence. Big morality issue difference. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1965" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1965 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24772 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24759 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JLHa02082 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:10 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <6165df7d.36296086@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:10 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:43 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > >Kelly, > > > >> I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are > >> started, without a > >> practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots > >> of the US is > >> being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it. > >> > >> This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we > >> would go out and > >> found colonies just because. > > > >Ahh, okay. I understand now. And I was pointing out how colonies didn't just > >"start", they began with fishing camps (an economic justification). Without > >going into boring historical detail, we are both right, we're just not > >talking about quite the same thing. Right! >In fact, there were "causes" behind most of the colonies. I was just > >pointing out that they were usually preceded by advanced scouts (the > >fishermen in most cases, but not all) and were attempting to reach some > >haven which they had been told was exceptionally attractive. Unfortunately, > >many of them went off course and ended up settling somewhere besides where > >they had originally intended, or their "causes" disappeared (frequently > >political causes) and the colony subsequently foundered. > > > >You were just taking exception to fishing camps being considered > >colonies...which they weren't. Agree on all points. >Incidentally, the ones that survived were mostly private ventures of one > >variety or another and although they frequently had difficult times at the > >beginning they mostly survived because conditions at their landing point > >were close to ideal and their cause held up. > > > >There may be lessons here for would be colonists of the planets and other > >stars... Find rich aliens and raise the Jolly Rodger? Hum... Works for me! ;) Far better then Zenon's "send them out to die for the cause". Certainly a agrees with my demand for a profitable colony. >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1333" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1333 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24821 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24805 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VNOa22760 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:16 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:16 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 9:16:55 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: Bjorn Nilsson >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: >> >> > Bjorn, >> > >> > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling >> > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there... >> > >> > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some >> > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly... >> >> Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was >> certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other >> people will, >> >No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn. >He even once stated that it will be better to kill you >rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed... Zenon, Zenon, Zenon. I never said that. Besides, I'm an American. I'ld just put your investors and promoters in prison and freeze your assets for criminal negligence and atempted murder or medical experimentation on humans. Then seaze your equipment and ship. So much more civilized. ;) >===> >Maybe, instead of quarreling with Kelly again on this issue, >I finally can sit down comfortably in my computer chair >and watch you quarreling with him? ;-)) > >Good luck, Ohoo. Feash meat. ;) >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["706" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 706 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24795 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24785 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2COFa10656 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:05 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:05 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:44 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien > >> EVER set foot > >> on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld > >> obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff > >> which all is > >> very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were > >> found in some > >> odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why? > > > >That one is almost as good as the one that alien nano machines are watching > >our every move! > > > >Lee Hey it sure beats the one where were under galactic quarentine for being to weird to talk to. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3239" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:24" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3239 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24859 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA24852 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KETa02317 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:24 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5549f855.36296094@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:24 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 1:54:36 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Kelly, > >A compilation of two letters: > >>>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space. >> >>One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set foot >>on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld >>obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is >>very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some >>odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why? > >Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't >happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria. >And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens >that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not >just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would >hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's >atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the >spacesuit from becoming a balloon. Surprized you heard about the 'grays'. That style of alien sighting is only common in the U.S. (other areas of the world have different cultural preferences) europeansd generally report Nordic looking ET's. ;) Anyway quock check shows the aliens are B.S. As to the idea the contamination won't happen without quatities of microbes, thats not really true. Microbes reproduce. So if one hits a fertile zone, you quickly get quantities. > >==================================================================== > >>>But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall, >>>they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a >>>numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack. >>>I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most >>>badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we? >> >>They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of >>simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as >>agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however >>only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far >>simpler task. > >Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters >of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of >the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially >compensate for this thermal inconveniance. That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive (even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against. >Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding >for the bacteria or small organisms any easier. >In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can >cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the >body itself in response to the intruder. Again, only if its something te body knows to attack. Many things will kill us without triggering any defensive measure. > >Timothy Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1032" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:26" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1032 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24820 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24800 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KSWa10441 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:26 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <38088da.3629605a@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:26 EDT In a message dated 10/15/98 8:30:29 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> >> >Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that >> >fast and would just get a ticket if you did. >> >> Not in my area of the country. >> >> >Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum >> >speed, that why. >> >> What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra >> cost) to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit. >> >Kelly, it is the other way round: you are designing a ship for >optimal work at 1g (e.g., the best fuel efficiency, reliability, etc.). >And then - bingo - it appears that such designed ship >is capable to achieve 10g for some time >(albeit with less efficiency). OK? Not unless you want to assume structures all redesigned to take 10 times the stress, and engines designed to 10 times the thrust? >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4154" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "101" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4154 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24875 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24866 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2BZRa08737 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:32 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <356417a8.3629609c@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:32 EDT In a message dated 10/14/98 11:12:53 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > economics is a science with understood laws and rules that > > even apply across species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't > > well researched, but is a reflection of the structure of our > > minds, which excluding extensive gene work, isn't likely to > > change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it > > roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring > > trivialities like music art etc falls into a couple major > > groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) which have existed for a > > few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of law > > based, probably democratic society will dominate long term > > (dictatortships lack productivity to compete long term). > >Perhaps you've heard the saying "The first step to knowledge is >to know how much you don't know." Glad I could help you. ;) >Economics can't make useful predictions; the models used in >economics are completely artificial and unrealistic. Thats a bit of a stretch. Economic models do very acuratly predict what they are intended to predict. What else were you expecting them to? >Psychology >can't make useful predictions either -- Its immature but within ranges its fairly good at predicting responces of populations, which is what were talking about. >-- even if it is that >the human mind will remain unchanged in the future (very >doubtful, considering the increasing use of automated aids to >thought), psychology is nowhere near understanding how the mind >works. If your talking about rewiring the brain, all bets are off. Past that humans use of AI's or something is likely to effect our cultures and belifs a bit, but hardly or isticts, values, or interests given they show a high genetic component. >As for social change, any society looks like any other as long as >you use a vague enough description. To say that a future society >will share aspects with historical ones is not the same as saying >that it will work exactly like any particular historical society. > > > So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major > > changes that would alter things. > >I think your inability to see such possibilities comes from your >lack of understanding, not to mention some apparently substantial >misunderstandings, of fields like economics, psychology, and >sociology. Well this conversations taking a turn for the pissy. > > Actually humans can't live without artificial work. > >This is only true recently, and only because there are more >humans on the planet than an unmaintained ecology can support. >In fact, many of our environmental problems stem from a >fundamental belief that things like air, water, and food just >sort of fall into our laps, ingrained from times when there were >less than a few million humans on the planet. Well technically no homosapieans could survive without some technology. A unique aspect of our species is that were and obvious meat eater who lost the teeth to bite through skin. So some toolmaking is required for any H. Sap.. Beyond that, for last few centuries strongly agrarian cultures lived with populations to high to be supported without farm. A big edge the American colonists had over the eastern American abbos who (as hunter gatherers) required tens of times more land for the same pop. Back to the point however given only developed coutries will go into space, their culture (used to living in industrial artificial worlds) arn't likely to weird out inside a L5. >In space, you don't just have to work to prevent from destroying >the environment that sustains you; you have to create it from >scratch and be involved in every aspect of maintaining it, which >isn't the way things are on Earth. You see a lot of natural farms, water suplies, sewage treatment, factories etc? We live in totally artificial "worlds" called cities. Moving cities into space will up the artificiality up a bit in regards to air, but thats not going to force people to any new political and social structure. Its only likely to effect the municiple tax structure. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1279" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Survival of the fittest..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1279 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25187 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25143 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGDa18750 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:36 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <2718e950.362960a0@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Survival of the fittest... Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:36 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 9:56:53 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Hi, > >Some quotes, that I read sofar: > >>Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at >>us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly >>nasty way. >> >>Kyle R. Mcallister > >>Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;) >> >>Kelly > >Most species on Earth won't attack others unless they feel threatened or if >they need something. This of course isn't some moral plan, but merely a way >to minimize damage to oneself and to not needlessly spend time hunting >whatever comes in ones way. >So it is not unlikely that alien civilizations have a similar attitude. As >long as they aren't in any need, or if they don't feel threatened, there is >little reason to attack. >This works, even while the fittest survive. > >Regarding needs, an advanced civilization can use pretty much any solar >system to get and make what they want, so only if they get real big, they >may feel that they need our solar system. > >And if their civilization is big, then it's hard to believe that they >haven't found us yet. After all, life has existed on Earth for a very long >time. If they wanted to make use of it, then why wait? > >Timothy All very true. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["706" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 706 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25422 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25354 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VAEFa17823; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:47 +2000 (EDT) 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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:47 EDT In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:48 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably > >> build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back > >> to market? > > > >I don't really know. They (NASA) have tested them, although I don't think > >the drop was from orbit, I think so far they have just tossed them from high > >flying aircraft to evaluate their impact performance. Basically it was just > >an inflatable balloon shaped like a caltrop or a child's jack, very similar > >to what was used on Mars. Apparently it can soft land a rather large payload > >very cheaply. > > > >Lee Sorry, havent a clue. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2742" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "07:15:03" "-0700" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "75" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2742 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25285 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from send104.yahoomail.com (send104.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.122]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA25278 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <19981018141503.21844.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com> Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send104.yahoomail.com; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:15:03 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul-V Khuong From: Paul-V Khuong Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:15:03 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/15/98 11:44:47 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > >> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction > >> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust > >> >> >still wait for breaktroughs. > >> >> > >> >> We don't actually need sustained, > >> >> > >> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept > >> >may lead to a viable starship engine? > >> > >> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No > >> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high > >> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is > >> handelable. > >> > >> >I doubt it. > >> > >> Why? > >> > >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro". > >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big > >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible > >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load". Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others: if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this: /¯\_/¯\ ´ >-2 waves \_/¯\_/ > > Its all a mater of scale. Scale wise the power to weight ratio of a 1G > starships not that much more then that of a hot sports car able to accell at > nearly 1G. The power of the vibrations should be equally handelable. > > > > >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, > >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about > >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory > >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up > >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. > >> > >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser > >> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built > >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable > >> it seems reasonable. Its not like > >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something. > >> > >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit. Do you really think that we'll have not-too-power-eating-plasma-engines in ONLY 50 years?? Maybe with pinchers, but it'd be better to launch simple particules you don't have to carry, like hydrogen: ionize'em, de ionize'em at the end, use supraconductors, after all, it's almost 0 K outside. == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["481" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "10:05:52" "-0500" "Gene Marlin" "rmarlin@network-one.com" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 481 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01808 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netra1.network-one.com (netra1.network-one.com [209.149.88.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA01803 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from network-one.com ([209.149.88.189]) by netra1.network-one.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA48F2 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:07:16 -0500 Message-ID: <362A03D0.B50B0F21@network-one.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gene Marlin From: Gene Marlin Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:05:52 -0500 > > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, > > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!! > > I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't think it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are sending people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission? From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1066" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "17:17:36" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1066 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09064 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA09007 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA16842 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bdfae5$1c886ec0$2fb1fea9@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:36 -0500 > In a message dated 10/17/98 2:58:54 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > Lee, > >I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio > frequencies, > >the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter > >than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply > >unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star > >that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies. > >Nels > > I remember reading that as well. > > Kelly Don't make me get out my slide rule...Its an inverse square law people, if you don't know the equation, I can provide it. Take the lowest possible signal that we can _detect_, divide it by 100 just for general principles (to make all of you super alien technology people happy) work through the equation backward and tell me what you get. If you don't want to do the math I will summarize it for you: IF you took the entire output of a medium size nuclear weapon and radiated it at just ONE frequency, it wouldn't be detectable at even fifty light years away. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["598" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "17:17:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 598 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09025 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA08991 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA16831; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000601bdfae5$1721fc80$2fb1fea9@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <326f0ffa.36296077@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:24 -0500 Kelly, > But, if it costs you $10 billino to lift the mineing gear and get > it working, > but you only need enough stuff to equal $4 billion in lift costs. You > wouldn't launch the mine. As lift costs drop. Low tens (may be > singles) of > dollars per pound to orbit is now technically possible if their is enough > demand. So lifting all the mass from Earth could save you so > much lift costs > it would save more then the mine could. Read the Commercial Space Transportation Study, this was all covered and allowed for. I repeat, the breakeven point is $100/lb to low Earth orbit. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1059" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "22:47:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1059 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29375 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29366 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HNWa02539 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:32 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <692f7866.362aa844@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:32 EDT In a message dated 10/18/98 10:12:28 AM, rmarlin@network-one.com wrote: >> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, >> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!! >> > > >I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't think >it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and >deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are sending >people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission? You miss the point. We can't send colonists. To do that we would need a selfsustaining mini civilization which is WAY beyond anything we could or would do. It would technically be virtually impossible, at least requireing a population tens to hundreds of times larger. The debate isn't between sending a scouting mission or sending a colony. The debate is between sending a say 8 year survey mission and returning them. Or sending a 8 year survey mission and leaving them there to die. Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1492" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "22:47:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1492 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29566 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29556 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MBFa13873 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:29 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <8ea18006.362aa841@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 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:29 EDT In a message dated 10/18/98 9:16:16 AM, paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com wrote: >======= >> >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary, >> >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about >> >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory >> >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up >> >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship. >> >> >> >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser >> >> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built >> >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year >timetable >> >> it seems reasonable. Its not like >> >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something. >> >> >> >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit. >Do you really think that we'll have >not-too-power-eating-plasma-engines in ONLY 50 years?? Sure. The fusion part we've done (thou research pretty well died when the fuel crises fizzeled). Making more efficent Lasers or voltage compresion systems certainly shouldn't take that long. The big if is will there be any reason to develop the plasma motors. If so, they won't take 50 years. If not, they won't be done. >Maybe with pinchers, but it'd be better to launch simple particules >you don't have to carry, like hydrogen: ionize'em, de ionize'em at the >end, use supraconductors, after all, it's almost 0 K outside. Don't follow this. Also superconducters should probably be avoided. >== Kelly From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1684" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:18:41" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1684 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08060 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:22:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA08047 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19287; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:18:41 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191218.NAA19287@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:18:41 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/16/98 8:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> > >> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group > >> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. > >> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the > >> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, > >> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on. > >> > >> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... > >> > >Yes and no ;-) > >I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn, > >as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem) > >for one-way missions. > > > >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions, > >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will > >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not > >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam, > >and let them perish in space. > >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily, > >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them > >to perish in space, it is OK. > >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here? > > I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to > protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. In the other we ask for > volunteers to die for buracratic convenence. > Bureaucratic convenience? How come? Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-)) > Big morality issue difference. > Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions... -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["785" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:16:13" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "16" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 785 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09291 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA09280 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19284; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:16:13 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191216.NAA19284@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:16:13 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > > Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt? > > I do not think you are anymore a specialist in basalt than I am in concrete, > umm, bad analogy, I can cast concrete. Well, anyway, basalt is still used in > your area of the world for culverts and such and is far superior to concrete > for most applications, including use on the moon and in orbit. I simply > thought information on it would be more readily available to you than most > of the rest of the list. Its not a well known product in the west I'm afraid. > Strange. I remember vaguely that I have read somewhere long ago about the possibility of casting building elements from basalt but I do not know of any such industry either in the East or West... -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1679" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:26:18" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1679 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09389 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:30:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA09374 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19301; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:26:18 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191226.NAA19301@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:26:18 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/15/98 9:16:55 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: Bjorn Nilsson > >> > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote: > >> > >> > Bjorn, > >> > > >> > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling > >> > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there... > >> > > >> > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some > >> > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly... > >> > >> Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was > >> certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other > >> people will, > >> > >No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn. > >He even once stated that it will be better to kill you > >rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed... > > Zenon, Zenon, Zenon. I never said that. Besides, I'm an American. > I'ld just put your investors and promoters in prison and freeze > your assets for criminal negligence and atempted murder > or medical experimentation on humans. Then > seaze your equipment and ship. So much more civilized. > > ;) > See, Bjorn, Kelly seems to become a little milder (of old age, perhaps? ;-) You have a chance of not being killed instantly, only being put in prison to die, instead of being put at interstellar mission to die among the stars. Just to show you how abhorrent it is to die among stars. So much more civilized to die in the American prison. And I have wondered at times why various people around the world used to shout "Ami go home!". Now I am beginning to understand... ;-( -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["723" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:31:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 723 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09913 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA09900 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19306; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:31:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191231.NAA19306@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:31:17 +0100 (MET) > From: Paul-V Khuong > > zkulpa@ wrote:zmit1.ippt.gov.pl > [...] > > >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro". > > >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big > > >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible > > >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load". > > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others: > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this: > /¯\_/¯\ > ´ >-2 waves > \_/¯\_/ > Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line, you can only to put them side by side. Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways, instead of eliminating each other. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1119" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:50:52" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1119 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13174 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT) 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 FAA13167 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19362; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:50:52 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191250.NAA19362@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:50:52 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:26 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species > >> which is more fit... > >> > >That is quite possible. > >Thus I would rather not count on that hope - > >better work hard to become more fit. > >And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early... > > I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here > to all concerned. > I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts: first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out, practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left to work of being more fit... I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts (using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars, especialy close ones. I consider it silly, equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates of our solar system. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3363" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:09:54" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3363 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16361 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:13:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA16349 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19376; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:09:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191309.OAA19376@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: YES, we might do it. Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:09:54 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: David Levine > >> > >> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > >> > > >> > And there is a big bootstrap problem: > >> > space mining is impractical without developed human > >> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure > >> > is impossible without space mining... > >> > > >> And that's where space-tourism comes in. > >> > >Or something other we may not yet foresee. > >Usually sooner or later something surfaces. > >Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because > >it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon) > >until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration > >make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder > >than trip to low orbit today. > > Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans > ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using space. > I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly? > >Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars, > >even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in > >this direction. Necessity to sustain people there > >for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion > >systems and other advanced technologies, opening > >this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining > >assessment missions. > > Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have > little significant impact. They have no reason to develop or use practical > systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political > reasons. > Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data on the conditions there, necessary to design and build further non-governemnt facilities and colonies. Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment needed for the private exploration of Mars. The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons (e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species], or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources). There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies equally "protected" from human enterprise. On the other hand, of course I would like better the first Mars Base to be build privately by Mars Society & private companies (possibly supported by government throuh the "Mars Prize" system)... But just in case, let NASA try this too - some competition may be healthy here. > >I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS > >(which in current situation seems only a complicated > >way of transferring funds to Russian mafia), > > Big agree!! > > >leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies, > >(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-) > >and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors > >like the Mars Base. > > At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself usefull, > but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching > and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration efforts. > Exactly. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2819" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:20:01" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "70" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2819 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18267 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:24:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA18209 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19391; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:20:01 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191320.OAA19391@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:20:01 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will > >> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter > >> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that. > >> > >> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. > >> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once > >> in a while too. > >> > >Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so > >small that there is no real danger even when the container fails. > >It will be another thing with larger amounts. > >Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers > >on highways is a proof that we can make and transport > >antimatter in bulk... > > Well yeah I can see the public geting a bit upset if we start creating > and storing tens of tons of anti particals in our starships Bose-Enstine > condesit tank. Especial if we do it in low Earth orbit. ;) > That was exactly my point... > >[...] > >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet > >> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat > >> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent > >> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future. > >> > >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing > >> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your > >> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift > >> costs are about nil. > >> > >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported > >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet > >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary > >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space > >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally > >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water, > >appropriate temperature, base-building materials... > > Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space > (water, ore, air subcomponents) > Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit. > spining for grav isn't hard. > Still not yet tested practically . > Probably no real chance of > finding a planet with 1 g, > Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good. > right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway. > I am not asking for as much as air being breathable. Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it: solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits (oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad, but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable), lower temperature variation. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1305" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:27:09" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1305 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19288 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA19270 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19408; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:27:09 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199810191327.OAA19408@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa 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: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:27:09 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 10/13/98 12:03:54 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote: > [...] > >I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were > >"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide > >whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests > >succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the > > others.. > > The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food" samples, > and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and > photosynthetic life. But no organic mater. So after a lot of heated debate > they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically > reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic > mater. Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the organic > detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it. More fearce debate.--- > That shows clearly the superiority of manned exploration over a robotic one. A run-of-the-mill geologist with a hammer and a few chemicals in his suitcase field lab can settle the problem in ten minutes, and in several hours he can produce a wealth of data on the Martian conditions larger than all robotic crafts ever sent to Mars. -- Zenon From VM Mon Oct 19 10:26:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2144" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "10:13:55" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "41" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2144 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19231 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19219; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <90b12550.36296062@aol.com> References: <90b12550.36296062@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:55 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek > technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of > space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects). The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then. > Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence > faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling). None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all. "Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to communicate information. > Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say > you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster > then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'. You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations, at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal." Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't have FTL particles at all. > Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if > they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a > blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The > theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.) General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or could be made from things that exist in the universe. The implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole or a "warp bubble". From VM Mon Oct 19 10:31:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["584" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "18:20:48" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 584 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24723 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:20:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA24691 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.67] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zVIwG-0007Cf-00; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:17:49 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019182048.00838d40@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: <362A03D0.B50B0F21@network-one.com> References: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Gene Marlin , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:20:48 +0100 >I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't think >it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and >deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are sending >people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission? I completely disagree. how do you sell this to the media? You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably the reason their taxes are now 30% higher. Andrew West From VM Mon Oct 19 10:37:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["44343" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "06:56:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "1002" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 44343 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01105 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01054 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 EAA04711 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p219.gnt.com [204.49.89.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA09857 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:58:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000801bdfb57$91684c20$0100a8c0@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:56:54 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com] On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:34 PM Subject: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15 [ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ] [ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ] S P A C E V I E W S U P D A T E 1998 October 15 http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/1015/ *** Top Stories *** Goldin Defends Russian Space Station Bailout Plan Air Force Announces EELV Contacts SOHO Instruments Come Back Online *** Technology *** AXAF Launch Delayed Again Three Successful Launches Sea Launch License Reinstated, First Launch in March *** Policy *** Congress Approves Commercial Space Bill Congress Approves NASA Budget On 40th Anniversary, NASA Looks Ahead *** Science ** RTG Heat May Account for Anomalous Spacecraft Acceleration Scientists Study Stormy Worlds Hubble Glimpses Distant Galaxies *** CyberSpace *** Brian's Space Hotlist NASA Watch Understanding the Leonid Meteor Storms Space Jobs *** Space Capsules *** SpaceViews Event Horizon Other News *** Top Stories *** Goldin Defends Russian Space Station Bailout Plan Caught in a growing rift between Congress and the Clinton Administration, NASA administrator Dan Goldin defended a plan to financially support the Russian Space Agency and hinted that a lack of such support could doom the station. "If we cannot fund this properly because of the budget deal, then maybe we ought to cancel the space station," Goldin told members of the House Science Committee during a hearing Wednesday, October 7. "I would say this project will have to be terminated unless there is a commitment by the government that we have to give it the resources we need." Florida Today reported that Goldin admitted that the major problems faced by the International Space Station (ISS) had "pushed him to the brink of resignation," but he decided against it. Goldin was called upon by the committee to defend a plan that would funnel up to $660 million to the Russian Space Agency over the next four years, in an effort to support the construction of the ISS. That figure includes a $60 million payment to Russia reported two days earlier that gives NASA Russia's share of the research time and space on ISS during its assembly. That report came a few days after an October 2 announcement by NASA that the first launches of the space station would take place is planned in November in December, but that the launch of the Service Module would be delayed to at least mid-1999. NASA, the Russian Space Agency (RSA), and the other partners agreed to launch the first two station elements on schedule. The Russian-built, U.S.-funded Zarya control module is scheduled for launch November 20 on a Proton booster from Baikonur, Kazakhstan. It will be followed December 3 with the launch of the shuttle Endeavour on mission STS-88. Endeavour will carry the Unity docking node into orbit. Astronauts will attach Unity to Zarya in a series of spacewalks during the mission. "I understand why members of this committee have great concern about the critical nature of Russia's contributions," Goldin said in an opening statement. "We share those concerns. Our reliance on Russian capabilities has to be reduced, not by eliminating their involvement but by adding layers of protection." That view was not shared by other panelists, such as James Oberg, a space program writer and consultant. "Russia's inability to fulfill its promises is not due to any temporary conditions which will easily go away," he said, citing allegations of corruption and a general unwillingness by the Russian government to give money to the Russian Space Agency. Calling the upcoming first element launches the "biggest Hail Mary passes in history," Oberg said that "the wobbly assembly strategy is a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong." Judyth Twigg, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on the Russian economy, also warned that a simple infusion of funds is not enough to fix the Russian problems. Noting a gradual collapse of Russia's industrial and operational capacity, she said that "money is a necessary, but not a sufficient, short-term fix." Without Russian participation in the station, however, the overall cost of the station may still increase, claimed Jay Chabrow, who chaired a study earlier this year on space station costs. "Since May, not a single ruble has flowed from the Russian government to RSA," he said. "Even knowing that, I will still tell you that without near-term Russian participation the cost to assemble the ISS would easily exceed the CAV Task Force's projection." Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) vented his frustration with the station's problems not only at Goldin, but at the Clinton Administration. He noted that two key Administration members, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Jacob Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who were invited to speak at the hearing but refused to attend. "An appearance at today's hearing by the White House and State Department would have at least sent a signal that they cared about the program and wanted to work with us towards a solution," Sensenbrenner said. "We could not begin to consider supporting this initial $60 million reallocation without their constructive participation in the process." "The plain truth is that the White House is addicted to the Russians," Sensenbrenner claimed. "I'm beginning to think it doesn't care whether the Space Station gets built, so long as the Russians are happy." Sensenbrenner warned that if the Administration doesn't show any willingness to work with Congress, he and his colleagues may end up developing their own solution that "will put an end to this problem, one way or the other." "My colleagues and I may find a way to do that and keep Russia in the program. We might not," Sensenbrenner said. "I would prefer to work with the Administration, but we cannot keep waiting for leadership that may never come." Air Force Announces EELV Contacts The U.S. Air Force awarded over $3 billion in contracts Friday, October 16, to aerospace industry giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The Air Force will give $1.15 billion to Lockheed Martin for nine launches on its Atlas-derived EELV booster and $1.38 billion to Boeing for 19 launches on its Delta IV series of boosters. Boeing will get an additional $500 million to supplement development of the Delta IV. Boeing's 19 launches will be spread out between 2002 and 2006. Lockheed Martin's launches will run from 2003 to 2005. The Air Force plans to use the EELV launches to replace its current use of Atlas, Delta, and Titan vehicles. The EELV program is an Air Force project to reduce the cost of space access for military payloads by at least 25 percent. The EELV boosters selected are derivitives of commercial boosters in service or in development. The selection of Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the EELV contracts is no surprise. Both were awarded development contracts in late 1996, and last year the Air Force said it planned a "dual-source procurement strategy" to reduce reliance on a single vehicle. Boeing's Delta IV is a family of vehicles based around a common core booster, powered by a Rocketdyne RS-68 engine, powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Various combinations of the core booster and upper stages are used for different Delta IV vehicles. The Delta IV Medium uses a single core booster and a Delta III cryogenic upper stage. It can loft 4,140 kg (9,200 lbs.) into geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). The Delta IV Heavy uses three core boosters attached side-by-side with a modified Delta III upper stage and expanded payload fairing on the middle core booster. It can carry 13,050 kg (29,000 lbs.) into GTO. Lockheed Martin's EELV proposal, based on its Atlas III booster, also uses a core booster, based on the Russian-designed RD-180 engine. A Medium Launch Vehicle will use a single core booster and Centaur upper stage to place 5,260 kg (11,600 lbs.) in GTO, while a Heavy Lift Vehicle uses three core boosters and a Centaur to loft 6,580 kg (14,500 lbs.) into GTO. SOHO Instruments Come Back Online The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft is approaching a complete recovery from problems encountered earlier this year as a number of its instruments have been turned back on, NASA reported Wednesday, October 14. NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) officials showed off new images returned by two of SOHO's instruments, the Michaelson Doppler Interferometer (MDI) and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT), to show that the spacecraft is approaching normal operations for the first time in nearly four months. "Scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have waited anxiously for the recover of SOHO," said Roger Bonnet, ESA director of science. Because of the "extraordinary effort" of NASA and ESA personnel and industry contractors, Bonnet said, "the world has recovered its chief watchdog on the Sun." Nine of SOHO's 12 instruments have been turned on, said ESA project scientist Bernhard Fleck. Four of the instruments, including MDI and EIT, are fully functional, while the other five are being carefully checked out. "So far no signs of damage due to thermal stress during the deep freeze have been detected," Fleck said. The remaining instruments will be tested during the next few weeks. "We hope that all SOHO scientific instruments can be returned to the same level of health, so we can resume scientific operations in the near future," said U.S. SOHO project scientist Joe Gurman. Controllers lost contact with SOHO June 24 when a combination of several problems on the ground, including poor decisions by ground controllers, sent the spacecraft into a spin. The spacecraft was out of contact with the Earth until early August, and its spin was corrected September 16 after its hydrazine fuel thawed. SOHO was launched in December 1995 and completed its primary mission to the study the Sun in April. NASA and ESA then decided to extend SOHO's mission through 2003, so the spacecraft can monitor the Sun as it passes through the peak of its 11-year activity cycle around the year 2000. *** Technology *** AXAF Launch Delayed Again NASA announced Tuesday, October 13, that the shipment of the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) to Cape Canaveral in preparation for an upcoming shuttle launch had been delayed while a review of the project is performed. AXAF was to be shipped by its builder, aerospace company TRW, to Cape Canaveral this month. There the spacecraft was to be prepared for a launch on the space shuttle Columbia January 21, 1999. However, AXAF will remain at TRW's Redondo Beach, California, facility to continue tests and to replace an electrical switching box on the satellite. In addition, a review of AXAF, performed by NASA Chief Engineer Daniel Mulville, will be performed between now and mid-January. "We think it's prudent to wait to see what the review will tell us before we set shipment and launch dates, so we don't expect to ship AXAF before that," said Kenneth Ledbetter, director of the Mission and Payload Division of the Office of Space Science at NASA. That would likely delay the launch of AXAF until mid-1999. "It was a difficult decision, but we evaluated a number of options for handling the remaining work, and selected the one that will give us the most assurance of successfully completing the work," Ledbetter said. AXAF had earlier been planned for an August 1998 launch, but problems with the spacecraft pushed back the launch to December, then to January 1999 to avoid conflicts with the first shuttle mission dedicated to the assembly of the International Space Station. Once in space, AXAF will fly in an elliptical orbit far above the orbit of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, other spacecraft that, like AXAF and the under-development Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), are part of NASA's "Great Observatories" project. AXAF will spend at least five years studying X=ray sources in the universe, including supernova remnants, black holes, neutron stars, and quasars. Three Successful Launches Ariane, Atlas, and Taurus boosters successfully launched an assortment of commercial and military satellites from launch sites in North and South America in early October. An Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) Taurus booster launched a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, at 6:04 am EDT (1004 UT) Saturday, October 3. The Taurus carried the 700-kg (1,540-lb.) Space Technology Experiment (STEX) satellite for the NRO. STEX, built by Lockheed Martin, is designed to demonstrate 29 new technologies that may be applied to future spacecraft. The tests include a tether, an electrical propulsion system, and a low-shock device to gently separate the satellite from the booster. An Ariane 44L lifted off at 6:51 pm EDT (2251 UT) Monday, October 5, from Kourou, French Guiana, carrying the Eutelsat W2 and Sirius 3 communications satellites into orbit, the prelude for an Ariane 5 launch later in the month. The W2 satellite, built by the French company Alcatel, will be used by Eutelsat, the European Telecommunications Satellite Organization, to provide direct TV coverage for Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The Sirius 3 satellite, built by Hughes, will provide direct TV for Scandinavia. The launch is the last before the October 20 launch of an Ariane 5 booster, the third launch of the heavy-lift rocket. Ariane 503 will carry an atmospheric reentry demonstrator and a dummy satellite. An Atlas 2A lifted off at 6:50 pm EDT (2250 UT) Friday, October 9,from Pad 36B at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying the Eutelsat Hot Bird 5 satellite into orbit. There were a number of problems that delayed the launch, originally scheduled for 5:55 pm EDT (2155 UT). The launch time was pushed back 5 minutes to avoid the threat of a possible collision with an orbiting spacecraft, then further delayed by clouds and lightning in the area. The weather did clear and the launch was rescheduled for 6:30 pm EDT (2230 UT). The countdown proceeded but was stopped at the 1-minute 18-second mark when a sensor reported that the liquid oxygen tank on the Centaur upper stage was overfilled. That and other minor problems were corrected, clearing the way for a launch at 6:50 pm, with just 15 minutes left in the launch window. The Hot Bird 5 will be used by the European company Eutelsat to television, radio, and other services for Europe. It will replace the older Eutelsat 2F-1 satellite. Sea Launch License Reinstated, First Launch in March The U.S. State Department reinstated the export license for Boeing's Sea Launch program Wednesday, September 30, more than two months after it was suspended on allegations of the improper transfer of information to Russian and Ukrainian partners. Less than two weeks later, Boeing announced that the first Sea Launch mission would take place in March 1999, with the launch of a dummy payload. The license was reinstated after Boeing paid a $10 million fine. The company said that part of the fine was suspended so the money would be used internally to support export compliance measures. The State Department suspended Boeing's export license July 27 after the company admitted it had not followed proper procedures regarding the exchange of technical information with Russians and Ukrainians. The project's first launch was to be of a Hughes HS 702 communications satellite for PanAmSat, but Boing announced OCtober 12 that the first launch will be of a dummy payload that will resemble an HS 702. "We are proceeding with preparations to being Sea Launch online and this will be accomplished through the demonstration launch," Sea Launch president Allen B. Ashby said. "While Sea Launch has revised its payload for the first launch, the company is committed to meeting the requirements of its customers." Boeing is the lead partner on Sea Launch, a project to launch rockets from a floating platform in the Pacific Ocean. The project uses a Zenit 2 booster provided by KB Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of the Ukraine, an upper stage developed by RSC Energia of Russia, and a launch platform and command ship built by Norway's Kvaerner Maritime. Boeing serves as the project integrator and operates Sea Launch's home port in Long Beach, California. Project participants believe the system will be a way to economically launch large communications satellites. By launching in equatorial waters in the Pacific, the Zenit booster can get the maxmimum kick from the Earth's rotation, allowing it to loft larger payloads. *** Policy *** Congress Approves Commercial Space Bill The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Monday, October 5, a conference report on previously-approved legislation that should make it much easier for private companies to launch spacecraft and do space-related business, with the Senate following suit three dyas later. H. Res. 572 was approved by a voice vote in the House October 5. The resolution called for the approval of H.R. 1702, the Commercial Space Act, and minor Senate amendments to the bill. On Thursday. October 8, the Senate approved the legislation on unanimous consent, leaving only the President's signature standing between it and enactment. President Clinton is expected to sign the legislation. H.R. 1702 passed in the House last fall and was approved by the Senate in late July. The bill covers a number of aspects of commercial space efforts, from the licensing of reusable launch vehicles to the purchase by the government of commercial launch services and scientific data. The bill gives the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the authority to license the reentry of reusable launch vehicles. The FAA currently has the authority to license launches, but not reentries. The ability to issue launch and reentry licenses was seen by many analysts as the key section of the bill. With new reusable launch vehicles being developed by private industry, such regulation is critical to permit them to be launched from the United States. In one case, Kistler Aerospace, developer of the K-1 reusable launch vehicle, has planned to launch from Australia instead of the United States, thanks to a regulatory environment more conducive to commercial space ventures. Other launch firms have also considered offshore launch sites. One aspect missing from the final version of the bill is legislation regarding licensing of remote sensing. This subject had become sensitive as some members of Congress feared loosening licenses on remote sensing satellites could endanger the security of the United States and its allies, particularly Israel. "The State Department kept pushing for even more authority than they have now," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chair of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, "so rather than give them that authority and make life harder for our remote sensing industry, we decided simply to strike title II [remote sensing] from the bill, and say, we will come back and talk about that issue on another day." Congress Approves NASA Budget The U.S. Congress approved earlier this month NASA's 1999 budget, increasing its budget by $200 million from the Clinton Administration's first request and making a number of administrative changes, including a new name for a NASA field center. H.R. 4194, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs, as well as independent agencies like NASA, was approved by the House October 5 and the Senate October 8, after a conference committee ironed out differences between the two versions of the bill. The bill has been sent on to President Clinton for his signature, but that has been delayed while efforts by the Democratic administration and the Republican-controlled Congress to iron out an overall budget accord are underway. H.R. 4194 includes $13.665 billion for NASA in 1999, $200 million more than first requested. The space agency received $13.638 billion in 1998 and $13.7 billion in 1997. Human space flight, which includes the space shuttle and International Space Station, will receive $5.48 billion in 1999, $200 million less than in 1998 and $30 million less than what the Clinton Administration requested. The space station will be fully funded in 1999 at $2.27 billion, while the space shuttle program gets $3.059 billion, slightly less than requested but about $100 million more than in 1998. Space, Aeronautics, and Technology, the section of NASA that does research and development and funds space science missions, will get $5.654 billion in 1999, nearly $200 million more than requested and $100 million more than in 1998. A number of specific projects got funding increases beyond what was oringally requested. The Mars Surveyor 2001 program got a $20 million boost, which may be enough to include a Sojourner-like rover on the lander component of that spacecraft. The Next Generation Space Telescope, space solar power research, and near-Earth asteroid tracking programs also got funding boosts. Technology projects also got funding boosts. Congress directed $20 million to be spent on NASA's contribution to the Military Space Plane program, while liquid flyback boosters and hybrid propulsion also got funding incerases. The spending bill also included a number of administrative measures. Notably, the bill calls on NASA to rename the Lewis Research Center in Cleveland to the "John Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field", after the retiring senator and former astronaut who will be flying on STS-95 at the end of October. H.R. 4194 also restricts NASA from spending funds from other projects on the space station, as members of Congress signal their disapproval with how the project is being managed. The bill also calls on Congress to separate space station funding from other programs anmd present it in a separate account starting in fiscal year 2000. However, the final version of the bill removed a provision inserted into the House version that would have prevented NASA from spending money researching the Triana spacecraft, a controversial Earth-observing mission conceived and promoted by Vice President Al Gore. On 40th Anniversary, NASA Looks Ahead On the 40th anniversary of the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the administrator of the space agency and outside experts predicted -- to varying degrees -- a future where NASA and private industry worked together far more closely. During Congressional hearings Thursday, October 1, 40 years to the day after NASA was founded by an act of Congress, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin and other witnesses looked ahead to what NASA can and should do in the next 40 years. Those testifying noted that NASA, an agency born of Cold War rivalries and tensions, must reinvent itself as a research and development organization and a catalyst for commercial space development. In his testimony, Goldin described a future scenario where NASA efforts have revolutionized high-speed air travel, established human outposts in space near Mars, and launched robotic problems into interstellar space. NASA would be able to achieve this vision, Goldin said, by transferring as much operational work as possible to the private sector, allowing NASA to focus its efforts and resources on more risky, but higher-payoff, projects and research. "It is my hope that within ten years, NASA will have transferred all low Earth orbit operations and infrastructure to the private sector," Goldin said. "We will then be able to focus our human and financial resources on pushing the frontiers of science and advancing technology." NASA also needs the "sustained, bi-partisan advocacy that has characterized Congressional support for NASA for the past four decades," Goldin added. "To earn this support, we intend to continue to do what we say were going to do and honor our commitments to the Administration and Congress." Pete Conrad, a former astronaut and current chairman and CEO of Universal Space Lines, outlined four roles for NASA and the federal government in the future of space. Conrad believed that governement should encourage and support science, foster long-term high-risk technology development, defend the nation's interests in space, and encourage the growth of commercial space efforts. For the final goal, Conrad said government should purchase both launch services and science data from private companies and do technology development in the form of X-vehicles. Congress also needs to pass incentives to support the commercial space industry. "NASA should be the leading advocate of change and the transition to a primarily commercial space industry," Conrad said. "Nonetheless, the real change is up to Congress." "We have only scratched the surface on the possibilities for space commerce," Pat Dasch, executive director of the National Space Society, noted in written testimony. "NASA needs be more aggressive in laying the groundwork for commercial space enterprises." Not everyone agrees on the degree of action needed to develop commercial space. Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier Foundation, told Congress that far more radical change is needed since, despite all the success of NASA to date, "you and I and our children [have] little more chance of being able to go into space and participate in creating this dream than we had at its beginning." Tumlinson agreed with Goldin that NASA needs to get out of near-Earth operations. However, Tumlinson offered far more radical suggestions, including turning the shuttle over to private operators and commercializing the International Space Station "as soon as possible." Whatever course NASA chooses to pursue, it will require a well-defined guiding vision, wrote Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch, in written testimony. "I am not certain just what America's guiding vision for the exploration of space should be," Cowing said. "All I know is that we are in desperate need of one." *** Science *** RTG Heat May Account for Anomalous Spacecraft Acceleration An unusual acceleration towards the Sun observed in the trajectories of several spacecraft may be explained not by exotic new physics but by the radiation of waste heat from the spacecraft's power systems, according to one physicist. In a paper submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters, Jonathan Katz, a physics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, explained how the emission of thermal radiation from the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) on Pioneers 10 and 11 and the Ulysses spacecraft could explain why the spacecraft appeared to be slowing down. RTGs work by converting the heat from the decay of radioactive materials into electricity. This process is not 100 percent efficient, so much of the heat from the decay is radiated into space at infrared wavelengths. This energy is radiated into space evenly in all directions, so it imparts no net force on the spacecraft. However, some of the infrared radiation is reflected off the back of the high-gain antenna of each spacecraft, imparting a small net force in the opposite direction. Since the spacecraft are usually oriented such that the antenna is pointed towards the Earth (and essentially towards the Sun when the spacecraft are at great distances from the Earth), the force is oriented towards the Sun, creating a small acceleration of the spacecraft towards the Sun. According to Katz the engineering data on the spacecraft would create a force in qualitative agreement with that needed to explain the acceleration of the spacecraft, but detailed modeling of the spacecraft is needed to verify it. If correct, Katz's explanation would solve a problem first raised last month by a team of scientists from JPL and Los Alamos, who found that the Pioneer 10 and 11 and Ulysses spacecraft all appeared to be slowing down, for no known reason. The acceleration on the spacecraft was minuscule -- about 10 billionths of the acceleration created by the Earth's gravity -- but its existence opened the possibility that some new physical effect was at work. Katz, who read about the anomalous accelerations in a preprint of a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, said he became intrigued by the "provocative" implications of the work and decided to investigate further. "It was obvious they had not appreciated that the waste heat was many times the electrical power, and that a small asymmetry in its radiation could explain their effect," Katz said. Katz's normal line of research focuses on gamma-ray bursts and soft-gamma repeaters, but he said he likes to venture into different fields, from seismology to hydrodynamics, to explore interesting problems. "I am interested in unsolved problems in science," he said. "They are a lot more fun than problems which are mostly understood!" Scientists Study Stormy Worlds The weather on a number of worlds in the solar system is decidedly stormy, from Jupiter's giant storms to cloud systems on smaller moons, scientists reported this week. Planetary scientists gathering at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wisconsin, reported on a number of storms and weather systems in the planets and moons of the outer solar system, from the merger of two storms on Jupiter to cloud formations on Saturn's moon Titan. Astronomers witnessed a rare event earlier this year when two long-lived storms unexpectedly merged into a larger one. Two of the three "white ovals" observed in a band of Jupiter's southern hemisphere for over fifty years merged into a single storm as large as the Earth itself. "The newly-merged white oval is the strongest storm in our solar system, with the exception of Jupiter's 200-year-old 'Great Red Spot' storm," said Glenn Orton, a planetary scientist at JPL. "This may be the first time humans have ever observed such a large interaction between two storm systems." The two ovals, dubbed "BC" and "DE", likely merged early this year, although the exact date is uncertain since the planet is not monitored continuously. Amy Simon, a planetary scientist at New Mexico State University, explained that the sudden stop of the BC storm put into motion a series of events that led to the merger. With BC stopped, other smaller storms in that band stopped behind it. Another large white oval, "FA", merged with the smaller storms, while BC and DE eventually moved together. The merged storm, named "BE", appears to be undergoing a transition, Orton said, as the storm appears to be slightly colder than its surroundings and is opaque at some wavelengths of infrared light. "The oval may have generated a thick cloud system which obscured the downwelling" of material normally seen in such storms, Orton said. Other scientists have noticed that Jupiter's low-pressure regions, associated with some storms, are also associated with clusters of lightning seen by the Galileo spacecraft. The storms spawn bright clouds that appear similar to large thunderstorms on Earth, explained Andrew Ingersoll, a planetary science professor at Caltech. "We even caught one of these bright clouds on the day side and saw it flashing away on the night side less than two hours later," he said. The process that generates the lightning on Jupiter is not well-understood, though. "Models of terrestrial lightning suggest that to build up electrical charge, both liquid water and ice have to be present," Ingersoll said. "Rain requires a relatively wet Jupiter, and that's a controversial subject." The Galileo probe dropped into Jupiter's atmosphere in December 1995 detected far less water than expected. Ingersoll and other scientists believe that the probe may have hit a dry spot in the planet's atmosphere. Jupiter is not the only outer solar system planet with a dynamic atmosphere. University of Wisconsin scientists, using images from the Hubble Space Telescope and the ground-based NASA Infrared Telescope Facility, have found more clouds in Neptune's atmosphere than seen in other observations in the recent past. Cloud patterns have been seen on Neptune since the Voyager 2 encounter in 1989, but the clud patters have been remarkably dynamic, chaning from year to year. "The character of Neptune is different from what it was at the time of Voyager," said Wisconsin's Larry Sromovsky. "The planet seems stable, yet different." The cloud patters on Neptune are unusual since energy from the Sun drives the weather on planets like the Earth. Neptune, being 30 times farther from the Sun that the Earth, receives 1/900th the solar energy as the Earth. The energy that powers Neptune's cloud patters likely comes from internal heat, although the exact process is not fully understood. "It's an efficient weather machine compared to Earth," Sromovsky said. "It seems to run on almost no energy." Similar clouds have also been seen in infrared images of Uranus taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Erich Karkoschka of the University of Arizona took the images, which he and colleagues are analyszing to understand the wind patterns and clear spots in the atmosphere. The giant planets are not the only bodies in the outer solar system with dynamic weather. A team of astronomers led by Caitlin Griffith of Northern Arizona University reported at the conference on obsrevations of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, which has an atmosphere denser than the Earth's. Griffith and colleagues, who observed Saturn for over 10 nights at a telescope atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii, found unusual readings on two of the nights. They explained those observations by clouds that covered about 10 percent of the planet from an altitude of 15 kilometers (9 miles) above the surface. By comparison, about 30-70 percent of the Earth is cloud-covered at any time. These clouds are different from the global haze that obscures the surface. What the clouds are made of and how they are created and destroyed has yet to be understood. Hubble Glimpses Distant Galaxies Astronomers using an infrared camera on the Hubble Space Telescope have discovered new galaxies thought to be the among the most distant objects yet known. A team of astronomers combined a set of long-exposure images taken with Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrograph (NICMOS) instrument and compared them to visible-light images of the same region taken by Hubble. The astronomers believe that these new objects are more distant than those seen in the visible images, as the redshift caused by the expansion of the universe makes more distant objects invisible in normal light but visible at longer infrared wavelengths. A number of the objects discovered had colors consistent with galaxies too distant to be observable in the visible-light images. The most distant objects are thought to be up to 12 billion light years away, making them some of the most distant objects observed. The exact distance depends on the cosmological model used to describe the nature of the universe. "NICMOS has parted the dark curtain that previously blocked our view of very distant objects and revealed a whole new cast of characters," said Rodger I. Thompson of the University of Arizona. "We now have to study them to find out who, what and where they are." Such studies will have to wait until a new generation of powerful, advanced telescopes, are built, because the objects are so dim as to make detailed studies of them impractical even with Hubble. "This is just our first tentative glimpse into the very remote universe," says Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories. "What we see may be the first stages of galaxy formation. But the objects are so faint that their true nature can only be explored with the advanced telescopes of the future." Such telescopes would include the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST), a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. Proposed for launch in 2007, the NGST would feature a mirror 4-8 meters (13.1-26.2 feet) in diameter and optimized for observations at infrared wavelengths. Studies of distant galaxies is one of the key missions of the telescope. *** CyberSpace *** Brian's Space Hotlist Brian's Space Hotlist is a collection of hundreds of links to quality space information. The site is intelligently organized into a number of topics, and annotations make it clear what each site listed is about. This is certainly one of the better lists of space links on the Web. http://www.ssl.umd.edu/space/ NASA Watch NASA Watch is the leading source on the Web for unofficial news about NASA. From the latest in rumors about the International Space Station to "Worm Watch" -- a search for NASA's old "worm" logo on agency Web sites and elsewhere -- NASA Watch keeps people both within and outside the space agency up to date on the latest "real" news about NASA affairs. The recognition for the NASA Watch site here is long overdue. http://www.reston.com/nasa/watch.html Understanding the Leonid Meteor Storms In November the Leonid meteor shower will put on another light show in the night skies, and the intensity of the 1998 and/or 1999 storms will be the highest since the dramatic 1966 Leonid shower. While it will make a nice display from here on the ground, the possibility of a serious storm is a concern for satellites in orbit, who could be "sandblasted" or even fatally damaged by the shower. This site, created by The Aerospace Corporation, explores the dangers of the Leonids and what can be done to protect satellites. http://www.aero.org/leonid/index.html Space Jobs If you like space a lot, why not try and find a space-related job? The Space Jobs Web site is an excellent way to do this, with its listing of positions in aerospace engineering, science, computer programming, and other fields at a wide range of companies. You can also subscribe to get the latest job postings e-mailed to you as soon as they're added. This is a great resource if you're looking to move into, or change jobs within, the space field. http://www.spacejobs.com/ *** Space Capsules *** SpaceViews Event Horizon October 19 Atlas 2A launch of the Navy UFO-F9 comsat from Cape Canaveral, Florida October 21 Ariane 5 launch od the MaqSat-3 dummy satellite and Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator from Kourou, French Guiana October 22 Pegasus XL launch of SCD-1 Brazilian environmental satellite and NASA Wing Glove experiment off the coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida October 25 Delta 2 launch of Deep Space 1 and SEDSAT-1 from Cape Canaveral, Florida October 28 Soyuz launch of the Progress M-40 cargo spacraft from Baikonur, Kazakhstan October 29 Launch of space shuttle Discovery on mission STS-95 from Kennedy Space Center, Florida October 30 Long March launch of the Feng Yun 1C satellite from Taiyuan, China October 31 Delta 2 launch of five Iridium spacecraft from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California December 2-3 NSS's "Property Rights and Commercial Space Development" meeting, Washington, DC Other News University Astrobiology Program: The University of Washington will become the first university to create a graduate program in astrobiology, bringing together students and professors from a wide range of disciplines, the university announced this month. The program, scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999, will provide a broad interdisciplinary look at the various fields involved in the study of possible life on Mars, Europa, and other worlds. Graduate students participating in the program will earn degrees in one of 11 fields, from aeronautics to history. Students will earn an endorsement noting an emphasis in astrobiology along with their traditional degree. "Astrobiology students will have to learn rigorously as well as more broadly than most other science graduate students," said Conway Leovy, an atmospheric sciences professor at the university and part of the astrobiology program. Sensenbrenner Introduces Space Station Act: House Science Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced legislation last week designed to remove Russia from the "critical path" of space station development. H.R. 4820, the "Save the International Space Station Act", would cap space station costs and prevent NASA from sending additional payments to Russia without Congressional approval, as well as require NASA to develop a contingency plan if Russia cannot meet its space station obligations. The bill is unlikely to receive serious consideration before Congress adjourns, but may serve as the basis for similar legislation when the new Congress convenes in 1999. Lunar Giveaway Planned: New York-based Applied Space Resources (ASR), the company planning the first commercial lunar sample return mission announced this month that it will give nearly half of its planned return payload to scientists at no charge, pending the results of a "Lunar Challenge". If 500,000 "Lunar Time Capsules" -- up to three pages of text and graphics etched onto nickel disks flown on the lunar spacecraft -- are purchased, the company will give away 5 kg (11 lbs.) of lunar samples to science for free. The company also said it will give way 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) worth of experiment space on the spacecraft to a worthwhile experiment that has not been able to fly to the Moon yet. The remaining 9 kg (19.8 lbs.) of experiment space will be sold for $5 million per kilogram. The company's Lunar Retriever mission, planned for launch in August 2001, will land in the Mare Nectaris region of the Moon and return 13 kg (28.6 lbs.) of samples from the Moon at a total cost of $50 million. Ask John Glenn: The National Space Society is providing members of the general public with an opportunity to ask questions of once-and-future astronaut John Glenn. Visitors to the NSS's "Ask an Astronaut" Web site (http://www.nss.org/askastro) can submit their questions to Glenn to be answered at a future date, and read questions he answered at a previous appearance two years earlier. Also planned for the launch is a live Webcast and online chats. ========= This has been the October 15, 1998, issue of SpaceViews Update. SpaceViews Update is also availble on the World Wide web from the SpaceViews home page: http://www.spaceviews.com/ or via anonymous FTP from ftp.seds.org: /pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/981015.txt For editorial questions and article submissions for SpaceViews or Spaceviews Update, contact the editor, Jeff Foust, at jeff@spaceviews.com. For questions about the SpaceViews mailing list, please contact spaceviews-approval@spaceviews.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____ | "SpaceViews" (tm) -by Boston Chapter // \ // | of the National Space Society (NSS) // (O) // | Dedicated to the establishment // \___// | of a spacefaring civilization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- - - To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address: - To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com - Subject: anything - unsubscribe SpaceViews - - E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net - - SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS), - copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society - www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com) From VM Mon Oct 19 11:24:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["970" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 970 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09867 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA09845 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23980 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bdfb8c$b8102160$0100a8c0@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-Reply-To: <199810191250.NAA19362@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:23 -0500 > I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts: > first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out, > practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are > at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left > to work of being more fit... > I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts > (using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars, > especialy close ones. I consider it silly, > equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates > of our solar system. Ahh, a light dawns...quite correct. A typical phased array radar system puts out a sufficiently collimated narrow spectrum beam to be seen from a LONG ways away. Thankfully, at the moment most are being used in frequencies which don't even penetrate atmosphere, but not all of them. A collimated, narrow band beam is quite different and actually more powerful than the nuclear explosion in my example and MIGHT be seen as far away as fifty light years. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 11:24:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["970" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 970 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09887 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA09866 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23996 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:36 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bdfb8c$b9bce700$0100a8c0@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-Reply-To: <199810191231.NAA19306@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:26 -0500 > > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others: > > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this: > > /¯\_/¯\ > > ´ >-2 waves > > \_/¯\_/ > > > Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line, > you can only to put them side by side. > Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways, > instead of eliminating each other. First of all, I believe all of these designs use some sort of shock absorber system, which should help a lot. Second, whether or not you could cancel that way is going to depend upon how large the impulse is and how far from the center line each engine is mounted. Too large an impulse or too far from the center line and Zenon is right, they won't cancel. If need be, you could go to even more engines timed to produce the following: _ _ _ _ _ / / / / / \ If they are grouped close enough to the center of the ship it should be possible to reduce the vibration to reasonable levels this way. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 11:25:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["421" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:14" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 421 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09806 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA09728 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23945 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bdfb8c$b35187e0$0100a8c0@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981019182048.00838d40@mail.u-net.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:14 -0500 > >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a > one-way mission? > > I completely disagree. > how do you sell this to the media? Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can be sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that. > You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably > the reason their taxes are now 30% higher. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 11:25:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1004" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1004 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09826 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09799 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23958 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:27 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-Reply-To: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:18 -0500 > > You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations, > at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values > that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal." > Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum > mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL > particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't > have FTL particles at all. Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking about evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers. ( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons (faster than light particles). Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible, there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light isn't possible. Lee From VM Mon Oct 19 11:36:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["628" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "11:30:08" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "14" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 628 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19682 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19629; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13867.34096.828768.943444@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd> References: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu> <000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd> X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the > evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible, > there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light > isn't possible. Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply, and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic forces wouldn't propagate isotropically. Travel at the speed of light is possible -- for photons. From VM Mon Oct 19 11:37:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3693" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "19:20:42" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "72" "Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3693 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19415 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19326 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.shealiak.nl (dc2-modem666.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.154]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22965 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:29:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019192042.0068ef7c@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <5549f855.36296094@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:20:42 +0100 Kelly, >>Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't >>happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria. >>And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens >>that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not >>just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would >>hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's >>atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the >>spacesuit from becoming a balloon. > >Surprized you heard about the 'grays'. That style of alien sighting is only >common in the U.S. (other areas of the world have different cultural >preferences) europeansd generally report Nordic looking ET's. ;) The NL imports a multitude of US movies, series and info-programmes. >Anyway quock check shows the aliens are B.S. As to the idea the contamination >won't happen without quatities of microbes, thats not really true. Microbes >reproduce. So if one hits a fertile zone, you quickly get quantities. If there were no other bacteria, you would be right. I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on Earth were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the fittest and most numerous for that particular spot. The likelyhood of survival of a few bacteria that are not (yet) adapted to that spot is therefore small. Assuming the spot is suitable for the new bacteria, they'd need to be much stronger to get the overhand while being attacked by a majority that has the advantage of being adapted best to the particular spot. >>==================================================================== >>Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters >>of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of >>the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially >>compensate for this thermal inconveniance. > >That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive >(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a >feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against. Survival is something very different from thriving. I doubt that there are bacteria that can thrive in a large range of temperatures. Anyhow, any divergence from the optimum temperature for the hositle bacteria will give the human body an advantage. Our body can sense a very large scale of alien (not necessarily extraterrestrial) substances. As far as I know it is not so that our body has to learn what is alien, it merely checks if it isn't familiar to the body itself. As soon as a substance is strange, the body will try to attack it right away. I suppose the body has standard procedures for substances that it doesn't have encountered before. >>Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding >>for the bacteria or small organisms any easier. >>In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can >>cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the >>body itself in response to the intruder. > >Again, only if its something te body knows to attack. Many things will kill >us without triggering any defensive measure. No, some creatures just can quickly enough find spots where our body's immune system is very ineffective or hardly notices it. Other substances like poisons are just attacking too fast for our body the react against (if they are in large enough quantities). In general relative small quantities won't make much of a chance. Timothy From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2898" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "12:52:49" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "60" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2898 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21158 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21089 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante34.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante34.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.48]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA51680 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:50 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante34.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id MAA69760 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Steve, There's a good letter on the Alcubierre drive at if you've got the mental energy to try to understand it. (not on a Monday) As for "regions of negative energy density" i believe they are referring to regions where the ambient quantum noise is less than that of the vacuum, called the "zero point," similar to the region twixt a pair of Casmir plates. but i also recall that this had something to do with a "false vacuum" But my memory's bad and the above is probably mixed up somehow. Anyway, the link is the important thing, enjoy. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: > KellySt@aol.com writes: > > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design > > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek > > technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of > > space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects). > > The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in > order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy > density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then. > > > Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence > > faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling). > > None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all. > "Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to > communicate information. > > > Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say > > you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster > > then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'. > > You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations, > at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values > that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal." > Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum > mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL > particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't > have FTL particles at all. > > > Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if > > they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a > > blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The > > theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.) > > General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing > FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL > travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or > could be made from things that exist in the universe. The > implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely > incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole > or a "warp bubble". > From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["776" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "16:10:44" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "22" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 776 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16956 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA16944 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:10:45 -0400 Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF321@mail.actionworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:10:44 -0400 > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 17, 1998 11:29 PM > Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it. > > Thats a good idea, we could also post parts in our personal account > spaces. > (I once offered to put most of the stuff I worked up for LIT on one of > my AOL > accounts.) I do worry about sections disappering as people come and > go from > the group or change accounts thou. > > Kelly > > Ah, yes, the one flaw in the plan. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@playlink.com Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/ PlayLink (212) 387-8200 Past performance is no guarantee of future results. From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["579" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998