From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2104" "Thursday" "7" "January" "1999" "23:52:19" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2104 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27272 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27189 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id WJEFa03472; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:52:19 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jdavis@crcom.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:52:19 EST In a message dated 1/5/99 10:02:26 AM, jdavis@crcom.net writes: >Your explorer class starship is a nuclear electric propulsion >interstellar ramjet, and so are many of my own designs. >The idea of placing fuel in the starships path artificially >,however is impractical. A nuclear electric ramjet must use >ion or plasma type engines to propell it. A nuclear fission >electric power source is sufficient to energize such a vessel. >Nuclear fusion , and antimatter power sources are desirable, >but they are not required . The strength of the interstellar >magnetic field is 1 * 10 to the - 6 power gauss. The strength >of the interstellar electric field is 1.6 * 10 to the -19 power >electron volts. The ion collection radius of a ramscoop is >the distance at which the ramscoop field is stronger then the >interstellar field. The strength of the ramscoop field declines >proportional to the inverse square of the distance from its sources. >This means that an electrostatic field achieves the greatest ion >collection radius in interstellar space. If we use a 1000 volt >electrostatic ramscoop field the ion collection radius will be > equal to 1.6 * 10 11 th power meters. 1.6 * 10 (19) + 1 * 10 to >the 3rd power volts is 1.6 * 10 to the 22nd power. The square >root of 1. * 10 to the 22 power is 10 to the 11 power by the >inverse square law. 10 to the 11 power meters is equal to >100,000,000 kilometers. This 1000 volt bussard ion collector >will then have an ion collection radius of 60,000,000 miles. > This is why the electrostatic bussard ion collector is the >solution to the problem of ramscoop design. Any comments? >Timothy J. Mayes Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, its a fusion direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized there was so little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops would be hard pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. (I wen't into that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. Sorry for the delay geting back to you. Been crazy around here lately. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["767" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "07:07:49" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 767 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10640 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 05:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA10633 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 05:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p212.gnt.com [204.49.89.212]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA04941; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 07:10:45 -0600 Message-ID: <001401be3b07$e416ec70$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 07:07:49 -0600 Kelly, > > Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, > its a fusion > direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized there was so > little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops > would be hard > pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. > (I wen't into > that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. > > Sorry for the delay geting back to you. Been crazy around here lately. Timothy seems to be basing this on a non material based scoop design which is bound to be several tons lighter. It is also about 600 times bigger than we had envisioned, which might provide sufficient material after all. I believe the difference in density is only a factor of ten locally. Lee From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1172" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "14:43:18" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1172 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20733 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:45:02 -0800 (PST) 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 LAA20699 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id MGKHa19751; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8b0e0097.36965fd6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, jdavis@crcom.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:18 EST In a message dated 1/8/99 8:16:35 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Kelly, > > > >> > >> Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, > >> its a fusion > >> direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized there was >so > >> little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops > >> would be hard > >> pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. > >> (I wen't into > >> that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. > >> > >> Sorry for the delay geting back to you. Been crazy around here lately. > > > >Timothy seems to be basing this on a non material based scoop design which > >is bound to be several tons lighter. It is also about 600 times bigger >than > >we had envisioned, which might provide sufficient material after all. I > >believe the difference in density is only a factor of ten locally. > > > >Lee Its been a while but I think we figured we'ld be lucky to scoop in much more then 200 tons between here and Alpha C, and we were real suspiciaous about any kind of scop extending one hundreds to thousands of miles weighing less then that. Been a couple years thou. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1247" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "14:43:27" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1247 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20626 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:44:48 -0800 (PST) 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 LAA20605 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id XKGIa19752; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:27 EST In a message dated 1/8/99 11:09:59 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 1/5/99 10:02:26 AM, jdavis@crcom.net writes: >> >> >Your explorer class starship is a nuclear electric propulsion >> >interstellar ramjet, and so are many of my own designs. >> >The idea of placing fuel in the starships path artificially >> >,however is impractical. A nuclear electric ramjet must use >> >ion or plasma type engines to propell it. A nuclear fission >> >electric power source is sufficient to energize such a vessel. > >> Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, its >a fusion >> direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized there was >so >> little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops would >be hard >> pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. (I wen't >into >> that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. >> > >Would not the Ort cloud probbly surrounding most solar systems make a better >brake with a electrostatic scoop? If it was a cloud of charged gas that might work (accept its to small to allow much deceleration at interstellar speeds), but I think its more an area or cometary debries. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4969" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "14:43:33" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "92" "starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4969 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21167 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:45:49 -0800 (PST) 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 LAA21141 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 3EPUa07005; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <550dbd3f.36965fe5@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jdavis@crcom.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:43:33 EST In a message dated 1/8/99 9:51:03 AM, jdavis@crcom.net writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 1/5/99 10:02:26 AM, jdavis@crcom.net writes: >> >> >Your explorer class starship is a nuclear electric propulsion >> >interstellar ramjet, and so are many of my own designs. >> >The idea of placing fuel in the starships path artificially >> >,however is impractical. A nuclear electric ramjet must use >> >ion or plasma type engines to propell it. A nuclear fission >> >electric power source is sufficient to energize such a vessel. >> >Nuclear fusion , and antimatter power sources are desirable, >> >but they are not required . The strength of the interstellar >> >magnetic field is 1 * 10 to the - 6 power gauss. The strength >> >of the interstellar electric field is 1.6 * 10 to the -19 power >> >electron volts. The ion collection radius of a ramscoop is >> >the distance at which the ramscoop field is stronger then the >> >interstellar field. The strength of the ramscoop field declines >> >proportional to the inverse square of the distance from its sources. >> >This means that an electrostatic field achieves the greatest ion >> >collection radius in interstellar space. If we use a 1000 volt >> >electrostatic ramscoop field the ion collection radius will be >> > equal to 1.6 * 10 11 th power meters. 1.6 * 10 (19) + 1 * 10 to >> >the 3rd power volts is 1.6 * 10 to the 22nd power. The square >> >root of 1. * 10 to the 22 power is 10 to the 11 power by the >> >inverse square law. 10 to the 11 power meters is equal to >> >100,000,000 kilometers. This 1000 volt bussard ion collector >> >will then have an ion collection radius of 60,000,000 miles. >> > This is why the electrostatic bussard ion collector is the >> >solution to the problem of ramscoop design. Any comments? >> >Timothy J. Mayes >> >> Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, its >a fusion >> direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized there was >so >> little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops would >be hard >> pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. (I wen't >into >> that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. >> >> Sorry for the delay geting back to you. Been crazy around here lately. >> >> Kelly >The density of hydrogen in space is 1 atom per cubic centimeter. >Ion and plasma engines require only grams, not kilograms of >reaction mass per second to function. I believe it is feasible to >collect grams of reaction mass per second with the ramscoop field. >1 gram of mass accelerated to 5% of the speed of light can generate >about 100,000 pounds of thrust. 5% of light is about 45,000,000 >feet per second. The thrust of a rocket is equal to the exchaust >velocity times the amount of mass ejected per second. >On direct thrust fusion drives, I would recomend Nuclear pulse >propulsion . This can be either a Deadulas, or an Orion class >nuclear pulse rocket. It has been possible to build an Orion class >nuclear pulse rocket since the 1960s. Deadulas class nuclear pulse >rockets use 1mg, to 1gm size fusion fuel pellets, which are heated >and compressed by either particle beams, or laser beams to induce >nuclear fusion in them. Lithium 6 hydride is the best fuel for them. >This is also the fuel used in most H-bombs. Orion class Fusion nuclear >pulse Rockets are propelled by the detonation of H-Bombs behind an >inertial plate. A little more engineering work is required to create >a Deadulas class fusion drive. Orion is feasible already however. >Nuclear fusion only converts about 1% of the mass of its fuel into >energy. This is why the maximium exchaust velocity that can be > generated by a fusion drive is about 11% of the speed of light. >A single stage fusion drive rocket with a reasonable, and realistic >mass ratio can achieve at most only 15% or 16% of lightspeed. >For this reason a fusion drive interstellar rocket is going to be > non relatavistic. >Timothy J. Mayes The problem isn't reaction mass but fuel. Accelerating a material 5% os light speed (a 15,000,000 meter per secound delta-V requires a lot of power. We need the hugh fusion fuel amounts to generate the power. Since fusion reactions that exaust all their energy as charged particals kinetic energy effectivly convert 100% of the fuel energy to thrust. A direct fusion plasma drive gets about all the thrust out of the fuel thats possible. The Explorere and fuel sail designs use a modified single fusion stage. Eiather be launching fuel to the explorer externally (effectivly the launcher system acts as a plus stage), or using a microwave sail to boost the Fuel/Sail craft up to speed on the trip out, or decel it on the way back. This still does require HUGE fuel mass ratios on the ships (10's og millions of tons of fuel on a craft weighing 100's of thousands of tons), but it does allow reasonable speeds up to 30% - 40% of light speed. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3143" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "15:27:56" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "73" "RE: starship-design: Re: starships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3143 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05765 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA05751 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:30:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p256.gnt.com [204.49.91.16]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA20745; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:30:38 -0600 Message-ID: <001601be3b4d$c1f7b6b0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <36961E0C.7C9F@xroadstx.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship-Design@Lists. Uoregon. Edu" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: starships Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:27:56 -0600 Timothy, Was that your post that I was responding to? I understand how a scoop would be constructed using current technology. My point was that the post _seemed_ to be proposing a different method because of the way it was worded. If you knew a different method was in the works I wanted to hear it. We had already discounted the material based screen from consideration do to force loading and the subsequent design restrictions, i.e. how do you support this screen at 0.3 c without it collapsing from sheer pressure? By the time you build a framework sufficiently strong enough to support the force loading on the screen the ship just got VERY heavy. All of this assumed a catcher that was only at most 1000 meters across. The original post was talking about sizes that were WAY beyond practical engineering. Just as an aside, if I were to make such a screen, I wouldn't use aluminum or copper, I would use pure calcium metal. It is lighter and a better conductor than copper. It does have a few interesting engineering consideration though. Hint, there is a reason why we don't have calcium wiring in our house, and the same reason is why it is perfect for this purpose. Lee Parker > -----Original Message----- > From: Janice Davis [mailto:jdavis@crcom.net] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 9:03 AM > To: L. Clayton Parker > Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: starships > > > L. Clayton Parker wrote: > > > > Kelly, > > > > > > > > Sorry its not a nuclear electric propulsion interstellar ramjet, > > > its a fusion > > > direct plasma drive. We gave up on ramjets when we realized > there was so > > > little known mass in this area of interstellar space, the scoops > > > would be hard > > > pressed to scoop up as much mass as the scoop gear would weigh. > > > (I wen't into > > > that somewhere in the site but can't find it at the moment. > > > > > > Sorry for the delay geting back to you. Been crazy around > here lately. > > > > Timothy seems to be basing this on a non material based scoop > design which > > is bound to be several tons lighter. It is also about 600 times > bigger than > > we had envisioned, which might provide sufficient material after all. I > > believe the difference in density is only a factor of ten locally. > > > > Lee > An electrostatic field is created by putting an electric charge on a > metal screen. This metal screen will be made of a material such as > aluminuim or copper. Positiveley charged ions are attracted to the > negative electric charge on the screen. Their electric field induced > velocity , and momentum will then carry them into the engine of the > ramjet. This negative electric field can attract positive ions from a > distance of 100 s of thousands of kilometers or more from the screen. > The metal screen need weigh only a few tons at most, and maybe not that > much even. > This how to solve the problem of creating a feasible, and workable, > bussard ion collector for use by bussard interstellar ramjets, and > rairs. Under the laws of physics, if an electrostatic ramscoop can not > solve this problem then probably nothing in the universe can. > Timothy J. Mayes > From VM Sun Jan 10 17:10:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["284" "Friday" "8" "January" "1999" "15:43:44" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "8" "starship-design: FRC fuion rocket at UW" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 284 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01487 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:43:49 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA01475 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:43:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante04.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante04.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.6]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA19878 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:43:45 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante04.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA77160 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:43:44 -0800 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: starship-design: FRC fuion rocket at UW Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:43:44 -0800 (PST) Hello all, It's been a while, and the last few emails prompted me to but this up for yr amusement http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/RPPL/STX.html Kinda neat. I', going to school here, and if i ever hear a talk or something, I'll be sure to say what I saw. Best Regards Nels Lindberg From VM Tue Jan 19 09:53:51 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1019" "Friday" "15" "January" "1999" "11:11:33" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "starship-design: Re: Web Site" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1019 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA19691 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:17:34 -0800 (PST) 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 IAA19682 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id FTFLa04796; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:11:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: freyes@stcl.tamu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Web Site Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:11:33 EST In a message dated 1/14/99 6:02:51 PM, freyes@stcl.tamu.edu writes: >Hi! > >I am highly interested in your web site on starship design. Do you have >members? If you do, what can I do to become one? How can I implement >my ideas? Please contact me. I would like to know more. > >By the way, I added a link to your site from my site. > >-- >---------------------------------------------------- >Reach me by ICQ. My ICQ# is 24089406 >or, >* Page me online through my Personal Communication Center: >http://wwp.mirabilis.com/24089406 (go there and try it!) >or, >* Send me E-mail Express instantly to my computer screen >mailto:24089406@pager.mirabilis.com >or, >* E-mail me at my personal address mailto:reyesfred@xoommail.com for >non-business affairs or mailto:freyes@stcl.tamu.edu for business only. > >Fred Reyes We still have a few. Kinda dry on new ideas thou. There should be a membership function still runing on the site in the newsletters section I think. Come on in and welcome to the group. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 19 09:53:51 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1188" "Friday" "15" "January" "1999" "12:04:33" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "starship-design: Re: Web Site" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1188 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10796 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:07:00 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA10787 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id XQMPa03210; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:04:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <423a9b9c.369f7521@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: freyes@stcl.tamu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Web Site Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:04:33 EST I don't have control of the access list, and I'm going to be off-line for a while, so I can't help you. You'll have to find the subscription function in the web site, or post a request to the CC'd group list. Sorry. Kelly In a message dated 1/15/99 11:45:51 AM, freyes@stcl.tamu.edu writes: >Thanks. I requested it with my personal (not business) address, >reyesfred@xoommail.com >So this may take some time to get approval. > >Thanks again, >Fred > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> IWe still have a few. Kinda dry on new ideas thou. There should be >a >> membership function still runing on the site in the newsletters section >I >> think. >> >> Come on in and welcome to the group. >> >> Kelly > > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------- >Reach me by ICQ. My ICQ# is 24089406 >or, >* Page me online through my Personal Communication Center: >http://wwp.mirabilis.com/24089406 (go there and try it!) >or, >* Send me E-mail Express instantly to my computer screen >mailto:24089406@pager.mirabilis.com >or, >* E-mail me at my personal address mailto:reyesfred@xoommail.com for >non-business affairs or mailto:freyes@stcl.tamu.edu for business only. > >Fred Reyes From VM Wed Jan 20 09:54:41 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["360" "Tuesday" "19" "January" "1999" "20:30:56" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "9" "starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 360 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24522 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:31:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24505 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA02836 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id UAA14167; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:31:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13989.23552.708436.630468@localhost.efn.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.64 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: going the slow way Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:30:56 -0800 (PST) A headline story on slashdot.org is a link to an abcnews.com story on an engineer who has designed an interstellar generation ship: http://www.abcnews.go.com/go/sections/science/DailyNews/interstellar990114.html Obviously his approach is rather different from ours; he plans to have a large ship (capable of holding a million people) travelling at 1/500 c. From VM Wed Jan 20 15:57:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1106" "Wednesday" "20" "January" "1999" "15:49:11" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1106 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02598 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:49:16 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA02589 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante42.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante42.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.202]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA46042 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:49:13 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante42.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA88036 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:49:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: <13989.23552.708436.630468@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: starship-design: going the slow way Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:49:11 -0800 (PST) Well I read about the guy's 'generation ship' and I suppose I'd like to try and start a thread here, since SSD has been so quiet recently. Personally, I think that the idea's biggest flaw is the timescale involved. During the course of a 10,000 year journey, the ship would become _very_ obsolete. Also, stuff would wear out. The ship would need to be designed to be completely refitted from the superstructure on up, every hundred years. I can't really see any way to replace some things while rotating the ship. Next, in any society of 1,000,000 there is bound to be a lunatic fringe whose very presence would endanger the whole ship. Also, while the first set of crewmembers would likely be a fine and upstanding group of folks, later generations are likely to be dissolute, rebellious, and imprudent. Remember the Chineese proverb "In the third generation comes destruction." For my money, I'd rather have a quick and dirty 1000-man 70 year mission somewhere and right straight home again, tn thousand years is entirely too long to wait for something to go wrong. Best Regards Nels Lindberg From VM Thu Jan 21 09:46:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["308" "Thursday" "21" "January" "1999" "00:18:17" "-0500" "Vessela Stefanova" "ves23@drexel.edu" nil "12" "starship-design: (no subject)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 308 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA24047 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ocs.drexel.edu (mail.ocs.drexel.edu [129.25.3.58]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA24039 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from Drexel.Edu (ppp-204-183-92-106.cust.oldcity.dca.net) by mail.ocs.drexel.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1998.11.13.11.10) with ESMTP id <0F5W00MTW9CJCV@mail.ocs.drexel.edu> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:17:09 -0500 (EST) Message-id: <36A6B899.F5D00084@Drexel.Edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Vessela Stefanova From: Vessela Stefanova Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: (no subject) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:18:17 -0500 To all members of the list: I read the article at www.abcnews.go.com/go/sections/science/DailyNews/interstellar990114.html My question is: Do you think that the average space for each of the 1 million inhabitants is enough to be 30-by-40 foot? Best regards: Stefanova From VM Thu Jan 21 09:46:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["300" "Thursday" "21" "January" "1999" "08:18:46" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: (no subject)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 300 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10265 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:22:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA10260 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p301.gnt.com [204.49.91.109]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA06144; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:22:36 -0600 Message-ID: <000201be4548$f5107190$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <36A6B899.F5D00084@Drexel.Edu> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Vessela Stefanova" , Subject: RE: starship-design: (no subject) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:18:46 -0600 That's 1200 square feet. Most houses contain less personal space. However, in order to maintain some semblance of normality, there would have to be some larger, common areas as well. If personal living space were reduced to 800 square feet then he would have plenty for malls, gyms, parks, etc. Lee From VM Mon Jan 25 09:51:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1860" "Sunday" "24" "January" "1999" "02:34:25" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: Re: starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1860 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22794 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:35:21 -0800 (PST) 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 XAA22787 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:35:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LVOUa05517; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:34:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5e6fb99e.36aacd01@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: nlindber@u.washington.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: going the slow way Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 02:34:25 EST Very true. Even a ship that takes a century to get somewhere is very likely to get their after the ships of their decendants from back home. Also as soon as you go multigenerational. You probably need a ship at least ten times larger. If you need a completly self suficent high tech society, you probably neeed a ship with a population of millions. Its REALLY easier to just build a faster ship in the first place. Kelly >>>Subj: Re: starship-design: going the slow way Date: Wed, Jan 20, 1999 6:55 PM EST From: nlindber@u.washington.edu X-From: nlindber@u.washington.edu (N. Lindberg) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Reply-to: nlindber@u.washington.edu (N. Lindberg) To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (starship design) Well I read about the guy's 'generation ship' and I suppose I'd like to try and start a thread here, since SSD has been so quiet recently. Personally, I think that the idea's biggest flaw is the timescale involved. During the course of a 10,000 year journey, the ship would become _very_ obsolete. Also, stuff would wear out. The ship would need to be designed to be completely refitted from the superstructure on up, every hundred years. I can't really see any way to replace some things while rotating the ship. Next, in any society of 1,000,000 there is bound to be a lunatic fringe whose very presence would endanger the whole ship. Also, while the first set of crewmembers would likely be a fine and upstanding group of folks, later generations are likely to be dissolute, rebellious, and imprudent. Remember the Chineese proverb "In the third generation comes destruction." For my money, I'd rather have a quick and dirty 1000-man 70 year mission somewhere and right straight home again, tn thousand years is entirely too long to wait for something to go wrong. Best Regards Nels Lindberg From VM Mon Jan 25 09:51:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1075" "Sunday" "24" "January" "1999" "08:42:03" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1075 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA13889 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA13883 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-45.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.45]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22872 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:45:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36AB4D5B.1ED341F@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5e6fb99e.36aacd01@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: going the slow way Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:42:03 -0800 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Very true. Even a ship that takes a century to get somewhere is very likely > to get their after the ships of their decendants from back home. I agree. By the time the ship got there, after its cruise of several centuries, it would likely have been outclassed by a new form of vehicle. I read a book about something like this happening...the inhabitants of a ship that took 500 years to get to some star (Beta Canum Venaticorum?) arrived to find the star system inhabited...by humans. Turned out the human race had figured out how to travel FTL about 200 years after the generation ship was sent. Naturally, they (the ones from the generation ship) were slightly pissed off... ;) As it is, what we are dealing with now, fusion drives and laser sails, may prove to be outclassed before they even were. Although I won't say what it is, I and some collegues are working on something that, if sucessful, might prove to be a much better form of starship propulsion. An we are getting small, but very positive results. Take care, Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Jan 25 09:51:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["304" "Sunday" "24" "January" "1999" "11:49:12" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "starship-design: More virtual worlds" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 304 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08266 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08255 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:53:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p246.gnt.com [204.49.91.6]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA11634 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:53:07 -0600 Message-ID: <000401be47c1$da0a7050$0101a8c0@claymore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design@Lists. Uoregon. Edu" Subject: starship-design: More virtual worlds Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:49:12 -0600 Here are a few more: http://www.furaha.ipe.nl/ http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/planetcs.html http://web.calstatela.edu/academic/builders/hischool/hischool.html http://mars.utm.edu/~davagatw/honors/duallus/ http://www.catharsis.com/xeno/ http://www.catharsis.com/rune/ Lee Parker From VM Mon Jan 25 09:51:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["602" "Sunday" "24" "January" "1999" "11:49:11" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "starship-design: index (http://www.io.com/~stefanj/82Eridani/)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 602 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08265 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:53:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08252 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:53:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p246.gnt.com [204.49.91.6]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA11626 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:53:06 -0600 Message-ID: <000001be47c1$d949df70$0101a8c0@claymore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE478F.8EAF6F70" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design@Lists. Uoregon. Edu" Subject: starship-design: index (http://www.io.com/~stefanj/82Eridani/) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:49:11 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE478F.8EAF6F70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Came across this link by accident, fascinating... http://www.io.com/~stefanj/82Eridani/ Lee Parker ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE478F.8EAF6F70 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="index.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="index.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.io.com/~stefanj/82Eridani/ Modified=D0C30BD2BD47BE0133 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BE478F.8EAF6F70-- From VM Thu Jan 28 09:55:42 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2432" "Wednesday" "27" "January" "1999" "20:16:41" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "53" "starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2432 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA26779 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@traffic.gnt.net [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26767 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA23706 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:19:49 -0600 Message-ID: <000401be4a64$3e0bac50$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:16:41 -0600 This was published last week and presents an interesting solution to the discussion we once had regarding drake's Equation.... Gamma-Ray Bursts May Explain SETI Silence Published: 1999 January 21 11:31 pm ET (0431 UT) Powerful blasts of radiation from an enigmatic astronomical phenomenon may explain why we have not yet seen evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, one scientist has concluded. In an article to be published in the January 23 issue of the magazine New Scientist, Fermilab astrophysicist James Annis explains that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) may have inhibited the development of intelligent life in the early universe. "If one [GRB] went off in the Galactic center," Annis said, "we here two-thirds of the way out on the Galactic disk would be exposed over a few seconds to a wave of powerful gamma rays." Such radiation would be lethal to life on land, he believes. GRBs occur in galaxies only once every few hundred million years today, but some theories suggest GRBs were more common in the early universe. Since a single GRB is powerful enough to sterilize nearly an entire galaxy, it may be only now that conditions have permitted the development of intelligent life here and elsewhere in the universe. "The GRB model essentially resets the available time for the rise of intelligent life to zero each time a burst occurs," Annis said. Such an explanation may be a solution to a half-century-old question on why we have not seen evidence of extraterrestrial life. The problem, proposed by Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi and dubbed the "Fermi Paradox", notes that a civilization traveling at only one-thousandth the speed of light could traverse the galaxy in 100 million years, far less than the age of the galaxy or the universe. "Where are they?" Fermi was said to have asked rhetorically. GRBs, which may be caused by the collision of neutron stars or black holes, can release as much energy in a few seconds as a supernova. That short timescale could work against the theory, British physicist Paul Davies points out. "If the drama is all over in a few seconds, you only zap half the planet," he said. "The planet's mass shields the other side." Secondary effects from the blast, such as the destruction of the ozone layer, may be enough to wipe out life on the rest of the planet, Annis noted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Lee Parker From VM Thu Jan 28 09:55:42 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1478" "Wednesday" "27" "January" "1999" "22:20:35" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: Re: starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1478 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14198 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:22:50 -0800 (PST) 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 TAA14191 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:22:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id PSFIa20091; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:20:35 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <50aa164.36afd783@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: going the slow way Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:20:35 EST KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Very true. Even a ship that takes a century to get >>somewhere is very likely >> to get their after the ships of their decendants from back home. Also as soon >> as you go multigenerational. You probably need a ship at least ten times >> larger. If you need a completly self suficent high tech society, you probably >> neeed a ship with a population of millions. Its REALLY easier to just build a >> faster ship in the first place. > Where do you get the idea that high tech needs millions > of people. Anthropologists consider that the minimum size for a self suficent technological/industrial society. Since you need that to continuously rebuild a star ship.... etc. Note however no society that small is selfsufficent on earth, or has been, so that may not be a valid number. Future automation could alter things. > While it is true you need lots of people to spread the > cost of risk of developing high tech, and a mininum > number of people to hold tech level a large number > of people would not be needed because technolgy > will be at a slower pace than the current level. I don't think there are millions of folks in high tech R&D in the world. Its all those folks doing everything from building phones, to bateries, to pens, that gets you. > A self contained society is possable but it requires a > major change of viewpoints. New veiw points won't get you a replacement air handeler or tolet. > > Ben. Kelly From VM Thu Jan 28 10:28:05 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1288" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "11:14:03" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: going the slow way" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1288 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA23110 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA23094 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin56.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.56]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24002 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:12:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36B0A8EB.5B3D2DC7@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50aa164.36afd783@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: going the slow way Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:14:03 -0700 > > Note however no society that small is selfsufficent on earth, or has been, so > that may not be a valid number. Future automation could alter things. > Right now nobody has done a good study (to my knowlage) of a good selfsufficent society. What I do see is that our society is not based on recyleable system but a throw away system. Since I don't have a good model for that system I can't make much coment on it. Automation can help but after watching old star trek reruns I want a lot of manual overrides. > > I don't think there are millions of folks in high tech R&D in the world. Its > all those folks doing everything from building phones, to bateries, to pens, > that gets you. > The industry - material web is complex, and needs to be greatly cleaned on a starship and here on earth. > > A self contained society is possable but it requires a > > major change of viewpoints. > > New veiw points won't get you a replacement air handeler or tolet. > No, but a differnt viewpoint will help with design so you don't spend money on the latest pink fasion tolet and skimp on the air handeler because it is over buget. Back to the topic. What ever the design slow or fast, It will be a major project that takes a long time to complete done by the whole earth. Ben. From VM Thu Jan 28 10:43:04 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4240" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "22:09:41" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com" nil "95" "Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4240 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01431 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:29:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01423 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA20026 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 04:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne12p34.ozemail.com.au [203.108.206.34]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01453 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:12:41 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <001e01be4ab7$260fe8c0$22ce6ccb@default> 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 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:09:41 +1000 Hi Group... ----- Original Message ----- From: L. Clayton Parker To: Starship-Design Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:16 PM Subject: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten >This was published last week and presents an interesting solution to the >discussion we once had regarding drake's Equation.... > >Gamma-Ray Bursts May Explain SETI Silence >Published: 1999 January 21 >11:31 pm ET (0431 UT) > >Powerful blasts of radiation from an enigmatic astronomical phenomenon may >explain why we have not yet seen evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, >one scientist has concluded. > He's not the first - I thought of it over a year ago... but if you don't publish you can't claim priority. Damn. >In an article to be published in the January 23 issue of the magazine New >Scientist, Fermilab astrophysicist James Annis explains that gamma-ray >bursts (GRBs) may have inhibited the development of intelligent life in the >early universe. > Has been published, it's on the Web... very interesting - is it enough? >"If one [GRB] went off in the Galactic center," Annis said, "we here >two-thirds of the way out on the Galactic disk would be exposed over a few >seconds to a wave of powerful gamma rays." Such radiation would be lethal to >life on land, he believes. > Consider when it might have happened last near enough to affect life on Earth... ? Like when? I have a couple of suggestions - about two billion years ago, quite close; and about 250 million, not so close. The first relates to a study which dated the divergence of life from a common ancestor ~~ 2 billion years ago - that conflicts with every fossil from prior to that time. But what if a GRB had wiped out all but one species? The other date is the great Permian extinction, which wiped out most life on land and in the sea. It's been tied to a catastrophic overturn in the ocean that released huge amounts of CO2. Earth at that time had one continent and a global ocean. If the GRB hit the ocean side then life wouldn't notice it much - but what if that acted as trigger for the overturn? Some change in acidity or greenhouse processes from massive amounts of upper atmospheric chemistry, which changed the thermal balance of the ocean... >GRBs occur in galaxies only once every few hundred million years today, but >some theories suggest GRBs were more common in the early universe. Since a >single GRB is powerful enough to sterilize nearly an entire galaxy, it may >be only now that conditions have permitted the development of intelligent >life here and elsewhere in the universe. > >"The GRB model essentially resets the available time for the rise of >intelligent life to zero each time a burst occurs," Annis said. > >Such an explanation may be a solution to a half-century-old question on why >we have not seen evidence of extraterrestrial life. The problem, proposed by >Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi and dubbed the "Fermi Paradox", notes >that a civilization traveling at only one-thousandth the speed of light >could traverse the galaxy in 100 million years, far less than the age of the >galaxy or the universe. "Where are they?" Fermi was said to have asked >rhetorically. > >GRBs, which may be caused by the collision of neutron stars or black holes, >can release as much energy in a few seconds as a supernova. That short >timescale could work against the theory, British physicist Paul Davies >points out. "If the drama is all over in a few seconds, you only zap half >the planet," he said. "The planet's mass shields the other side." > >Secondary effects from the blast, such as the destruction of the ozone >layer, may be enough to wipe out life on the rest of the planet, Annis >noted. > Probably not, but it'd disrupt a hell of a lot enough to cause a mass extinction in one hit. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >---- > >Lee Parker > > If anything is a strong argument for a galaxy-spanning civilisation it's a GRB - if you want to think in the long term and survive then GRBs need your attention. How do you stop them? By knowing how they form for starters. No one is still too sure. From VM Thu Jan 28 13:10:17 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["609" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "13:58:14" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 609 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23204 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23199 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin44.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.44]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03204 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:57:11 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36B0CF66.9547CA1E@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001e01be4ab7$260fe8c0$22ce6ccb@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:58:14 -0700 >Such an explanation may be a solution to a half-century-old question on why >we have not seen evidence of extraterrestrial life. The problem, proposed > by >Nobel laureate physicist Enrico Fermi and dubbed the "Fermi Paradox", notes >that a civilization traveling at only one-thousandth the speed of light >could traverse the galaxy in 100 million years, far less than the age of > the >galaxy or the universe. "Where are they?" Fermi was said to have asked >rhetorically. Waiting for sombody to put out the welcome mat is my guess. I can see them arriving and leaving with very little impact. From VM Thu Jan 28 17:03:46 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1639" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "18:47:35" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1639 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27525 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27502 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p222.gnt.com [204.49.89.222]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA13142; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:51:14 -0600 Message-ID: <001001be4b20$f60741e0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001e01be4ab7$260fe8c0$22ce6ccb@default> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" , "Starship-Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:47:35 -0600 I would argue that it is next to impossible for ANY civilization to survive to the point where they could predict AND PREVENT a GRB in sufficient proximity to wipe them out. As a matter of fact (without really having looked at the math) I would bet simply surviving such an event is probably a major feat, although probably not impossible. Does anybody know of a good gamma ray shield? Lee Parker > > Consider when it might have happened last near enough to affect life on > Earth... ? Like when? I have a couple of suggestions - about two billion > years ago, quite close; and about 250 million, not so close. The first > relates to a study which dated the divergence of life from a > common ancestor > ~~ 2 billion years ago - that conflicts with every fossil from > prior to that > time. But what if a GRB had wiped out all but one species? The > other date is > the great Permian extinction, which wiped out most life on land and in the > sea. It's been tied to a catastrophic overturn in the ocean that released > huge amounts of CO2. Earth at that time had one continent and a global > ocean. If the GRB hit the ocean side then life wouldn't notice it > much - but > what if that acted as trigger for the overturn? Some change in acidity or > greenhouse processes from massive amounts of upper atmospheric chemistry, > which changed the thermal balance of the ocean... > If anything is a strong argument for a galaxy-spanning civilisation it's a > GRB - if you want to think in the long term and survive then GRBs > need your > attention. How do you stop them? By knowing how they form for starters. No > one is still too sure. > From VM Thu Jan 28 17:07:29 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1554" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "18:47:33" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1554 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27528 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:51:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27506 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p222.gnt.com [204.49.89.222]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA13137; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:51:13 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01be4b20$f4fbec60$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <36B0CF66.9547CA1E@jetnet.ab.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:47:33 -0600 > Waiting for somebody to put out the welcome mat is my guess. > I can see them arriving and leaving with very little impact. Well, that is the nice way to put it I suppose. We have had quite a round of heated discussions previously, mostly my fault after bringing up the novel "Killing Star". I'm afraid I don't share the viewpoint that intelligent species are automatically benevolent. As a matter of fact, I tend to agree with Pelerine. ANY civilization is going to decide for its own survival, and given the facts as proposed by Pellegrino, if there were another intelligent species out there anywhere close to our own level, they would already be doing their utmost to wipe us out. Since we're still here, I guess there aren't any within at least one hundred light years. I don't think that another civilization is going to subscribe to the "First Principle" as proposed by Gene Roddenberry, so I don't really believe they were waiting for a "Welcome Mat" either. We have had a great deal of difficulty confining this list to designing a starship because so many different topics impinge upon the core subject. However, this is one that is definitely central to our topic. If it could be done, then it already has been done, and they would be here by now. So sayeth Fermi (and Drake for that matter). Well, they aren't here. SO, there are either extenuating factors we haven't discovered yet, or there are reasons why it isn't possible to do this, which we haven't discovered yet. Does anybody want to propose an explanation? Lee Parker From VM Thu Jan 28 17:09:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4603" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "19:57:57" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "74" "starship-design: the slow way; some further thoughts . . ." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4603 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02065 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:59:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02036 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:58:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.76.97.131]) by mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990129005824.GFLU20738@oemcomputer> for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:58:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01be4b22$72be54c0$83614c0c@oemcomputer> 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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Curtis Manges" From: "Curtis Manges" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: the slow way; some further thoughts . . . Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:57:57 -0500 Concerning the "generation ship," I've been thinking a bit on the psycho-social aspects of such a project. To me, the most daunting challenge of such a project has nothing to do with engineering (not directly, at least), but how to satisfy basic human drives. We have a need for immediate challenge and purpose, as individuals as well as societies, and I'm sure it wouldn't work to just stick a bunch of folks in a can and tell them, "Have patience! Your great-great-whatever-grandchildren will arrive at a new home, and you can satisfy yourselves that you'll be helping them get there!" No way. I doubt if this thing would make it as far as Pluto before someone started yelling, "Are we there yet?!" Multiply this psychological itch by the number of the population, and in no time, you'll have mutiny, constant (or repetitive) wars, and a succession of really bad politicians ("Vote for me and I'll get you there faster/take you back home."). It is my thought that the goal given to everyone aboard such a vessel, while the engines are still hot, should not be to stick it out over the long haul, but to get the hell out of it and find a quicker way to the ultimate goal. After all, you don't need to tell them that they are prisoners in the thing; that much is self-evident from the get-go. Thus, you encourage and creatively channel our basic aggressive tendency instead of futilely trying to suppress it. This does have a significant impact on the engineering and design of such a thing, because, if you just turned such an impulse loose without providing some resources to use it on, your end would most certainly be worse than your beginning (worse politicians). Resources for such a challenge would start, at least, with energy, raw materials, and knowledge and/or information. What your crew will be doing is designing and constructing the next generation of starcraft, while enroute. Basically, we can say: > energy -- make sure that the ship's power supply can accommodate some heavy industry. > raw materials -- this is, I think, a tougher question than it first appears. How much extra mass do you want to try to accelerate? What will it consist of, and how much of what kind? A beginning approach, I think, would be to build the whole ship by hollowing out part of an asteroid, leaving the rest as material for the crew to amuse themselves with on the trip. (For more ideas on this, see "Mining the Sky", by John S. Lewis.) > knowledge/info -- make sure your little community has a good public school system. I think that one of the most important things to do would be to make sure that access to knowledge/info can NOT be controlled or restricted by someone with an ego and an agenda (this goes for all of us here, now, as well!). There are lots of possibilities for schemes to accomplish this. Needless to say, critical control functions need to either be restricted to those who are competent to run them safely, or made fully automatic and permanently sealed. Personally, I favor the first option, though that still leaves some room for trouble. Now, I can hear someone asking already, "Why bother to launch this thing, just so you can do what you were going to do anyway (build a better ship)?" Just off the cuff, I can think of a few excuses: > the added impetus, of a whole population, to focus their energies toward the ultimate goal of escaping their tin can, by whatever means. Reduces the force of complacency. > isolation from political/economic influences of dirtsiders. The ship would not likely be overtaken by someone yelling for their money back. > the commitment to build such a ship would, by itself, greatly raise the level of technology available. It is possible that the very act of engaging this project would result in a better ship before the project were even finished. Anyway, the generation-ship idea has been done to death for decades in books, film, and TV, which brings me to an aside about designing it. Some years ago, there was a TV series about such a ship, and I recall that someone on it posed the question of how it was designed. The answer was, "They designed a computer to design a computer to design the ship." It has occurred to me that such a thing might be possible NOW, by parallel computing, linking thousands of PC's together on the web to work on the problem, a la the CETI-at-home screensaver project (sorry I don't have the address handy, but do look it up; it's cool). Have I even said anything new . . ? Gimme feedback! Curtis clmanges@worldnet.att.net From VM Thu Jan 28 17:55:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2033" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "23:39:39" "-0200" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@zaz.com.br" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2033 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18127 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18082 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:41:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br ([200.252.253.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18004 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:40:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from IoLithos ([200.252.253.95]) by mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id XAA17740 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:40:33 -0200 (BRV) Message-ID: <008301be4b28$4fd09f80$0a01a8c0@IoLithos.PanLithos> 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Antonio C T Rocha" From: "Antonio C T Rocha" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:39:39 -0200 -----Mensagem original----- De: L. Clayton Parker Para: AJ & AJ Crowl ; Starship-Design Data: Quinta-feira, 28 de Janeiro de 1999 22:51 Assunto: RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten >I would argue that it is next to impossible for ANY civilization to survive >to the point where they could predict AND PREVENT a GRB in sufficient >proximity to wipe them out. As a matter of fact (without really having >looked at the math) I would bet simply surviving such an event is probably a >major feat, although probably not impossible. Does anybody know of a good >gamma ray shield? > >Lee Parker Err, a (string of) gas giants? :-) [ ACR ] >> >> Consider when it might have happened last near enough to affect life on >> Earth... ? Like when? I have a couple of suggestions - about two billion >> years ago, quite close; and about 250 million, not so close. The first >> relates to a study which dated the divergence of life from a >> common ancestor >> ~~ 2 billion years ago - that conflicts with every fossil from >> prior to that >> time. But what if a GRB had wiped out all but one species? The >> other date is >> the great Permian extinction, which wiped out most life on land and in the >> sea. It's been tied to a catastrophic overturn in the ocean that released >> huge amounts of CO2. Earth at that time had one continent and a global >> ocean. If the GRB hit the ocean side then life wouldn't notice it >> much - but >> what if that acted as trigger for the overturn? Some change in acidity or >> greenhouse processes from massive amounts of upper atmospheric chemistry, >> which changed the thermal balance of the ocean... > >> If anything is a strong argument for a galaxy-spanning civilisation it's a >> GRB - if you want to think in the long term and survive then GRBs >> need your >> attention. How do you stop them? By knowing how they form for starters. No >> one is still too sure. >> > From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:24 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["244" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "20:37:58" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 244 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA05163 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA05099 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p282.gnt.com [204.49.91.42]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA28439; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:41:12 -0600 Message-ID: <001501be4b30$618e4620$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <008301be4b28$4fd09f80$0a01a8c0@IoLithos.PanLithos> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Antonio C T Rocha" , "Starship-Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritten Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:37:58 -0600 > > Err, a (string of) gas giants? :-) [ ACR ] Now how do we encode a Syzygy occurrence oriented in the direction of the GRB so as to shield a life bearing planet for a few hundred more years? I'd say we have Fermi's answer.... Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:24 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["526" "Thursday" "28" "January" "1999" "23:39:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritt" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 526 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05712 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:45:00 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA05701 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 2YHSa27818 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:39:29 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Fermi's Paradox - Drake's Equation will have to be rewritt Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:39:29 EST > >could traverse the galaxy in 100 million years, far >> less than the age of the galaxy or the universe. "Where >> are they?" Fermi was said to have asked rhetorically. > Waiting for sombody to put out the welcome mat is my > guess. I can see them arriving and leaving with very > little impact. As any forensic doctor will attest, going anywhere leaves traces. Besides that. Of the entire galaxy, everyone is planet phobic, and no one wants to do a bit of gardening with a pretty blue planet? Not likely. Kelly From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1100" "Friday" "29" "January" "1999" "11:22:46" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "36" "starship-design: errata" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1100 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01145 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA01139 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.76.98.25]) by mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990129162400.ETFB18214@oemcomputer> for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:24:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000901be4ba3$c153ce40$19624c0c@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE4B79.B24142E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Curtis Manges" From: "Curtis Manges" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: errata Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:22:46 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE4B79.B24142E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In yesterday's message, I used the term "CETI-at home". Sorry for the = brain-fart, that should have been SETI-at-home, as I'm sure most of you = know. Curtis ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE4B79.B24142E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In yesterday's message, I used the = term=20 "CETI-at home". Sorry for the brain-fart, that should have = been=20 SETI-at-home, as I'm sure most of you know.
 
Curtis
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE4B79.B24142E0-- From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2991" "Friday" "29" "January" "1999" "12:45:40" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "49" "starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2991 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04817 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04804 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:49:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-37.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.37]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA21230 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:49:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36B21DF4.7AF16FBF@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc... Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:45:40 -0800 SSD: While this discussion about extraterrestrials, and Fermi's paradox, etc. is interesting speculation, we must keep in mind that it is just that: speculation. We do not know conclusively that extraterrestrials do or do not exist. I think they probably do, and I have several reasons for that which I will not disclose. (Note: I am NOT talkin about UFO's!) As far as what they would do to us...if they are advanced enough to be travelling the galaxy, why would they need to trample a petty civilization like us? Let me ask you: do you go up to an anthill and look at it? I do. Do you try to establish communication with said anthill? I used to. Most of the time, we just pass anthills over. The older generation, more wiser, usually ignores them. The younger generation, sometimes steps on them for fun. We usually don't poison them unless they invade our territorial area (e.g., the back yard). Go ahead, accuse me of personifying aliens to be human...what are you doing? Pellegrino certaily did it. I read the book, disagreed with some, but it was a good and thought provoking read. Human are warlike, and conquer, looking out for only themselves. We have no reason to assume that extraterrestrials would be anything like we are. Back to the anthill analogy...if I try to talk to an ant colony, so they 'hear' me? Probably not. Why? Because they can't understand or detect my method of communication. We listen with radio waves. They travel slowly (only at C), and are easily distorted by interstellar interference. Do you resort to carrier pigeon when something like E-mail is available? No. If they knew how to send signals faster than C, that would certainly be more attractive than C-limited radio. Another point: why talk to us? It is easier to learn about a hostile, perverted civilization like us by just idly watching. Ask a sociologist. So, finally, where does the madness end? Speculation is good, but to claim it is fact is simply arrogance. Not that any of you have, I'm just saying don't let it get that far. On other matters...If you looked at my statement above about signals travelling faster than light, and are laughing, here is some food for thought. I built a device, last monday to be precise, that when fed signals through a length of wire, I could send an electrical signal at a speed of, by varying a control, less than C, C, and greater than C. Some claim it is the transformer effect; okay. I am building a bigger model, with a noninductive winding. The geometry is what determines propagation speed, not of phase, but of a CHANGE in the steady signal. In other words, it becomes possible to 'tap out morse' at superluminal. I and another scientist on the internet are working on a cordless version of this. It uses an antenna mad of a special material to send the signal. The material information is proprietary, so don't ask. Just thought I would let you know that, like some of you told me to do, "I am working on it." ;) Best regards, Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["998" "Friday" "29" "January" "1999" "12:42:09" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: the slow way; some further thoughts . . ." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02197 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02188 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00567 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:40:57 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36B20F0F.E5E227BA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001a01be4b22$72be54c0$83614c0c@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: the slow way; some further thoughts . . . Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:42:09 -0700 Curtis Manges wrote: > > Anyway, the generation-ship idea has been done to death for decades in > books, film, and TV, which brings me to an aside about designing it. Some > years ago, there was a TV series about such a ship, and I recall that > someone on it posed the question of how it was designed. The answer was, > "They designed a computer to design a computer to design the ship." It has > occurred to me that such a thing might be possible NOW, by parallel > computing, linking thousands of PC's together on the web to work on the > problem, a la the CETI-at-home screensaver project (sorry I don't have the > address handy, but do look it up; it's cool). > Why thousands just a few would will work. People and computers make a good match because people are good problem solving and computers are good in the little details. Ben. PS. I think the spacecraft will have the good feel of the 60's. Still think that the original enterprise was the best design in the fiction catagory. From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2641" "Friday" "29" "January" "1999" "14:14:59" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "69" "Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2641 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17581 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17565 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06482 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:13:42 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36B224D3.720AA246@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36B21DF4.7AF16FBF@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc... Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:14:59 -0700 Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > > As far > as what they would do to us...if they are advanced enough to be > travelling the galaxy, why would they need to trample a petty > civilization like us? The only thing can say about other civilizations space travel is that they have away to travel in space. Lets stop saying they are "advanced". I say look around and say "95%" of what is around on will be on another planet. Aliens are human !! because beings similar to mature humans is the only evelutionary way that will surive the rigors needed to live long to develop space travel. > They travel slowly (only at > C), and are easily distorted by interstellar interference. Do you resort > to carrier pigeon when something like E-mail is available? No. If they > knew how to send signals faster than C, that would certainly be more > attractive than C-limited radio. Hello ... ( 10 years later ) Hi there ... Hello on subspace ... ( 1 year later) Hi there on subspace ... Still too slow to usefull. When you encode all you want to say in one message long message say 5 years long the lag is not that bad. > Another point: why talk to us? It is > easier to learn about a hostile, perverted civilization like us by just > idly watching. Ask a sociologist. So, finally, where does the madness > end? I allways thought madness come out of fear and conflicts do to overpopulation and lack of self esteem. > > On other matters...If you looked at my statement above about signals > travelling faster than light, and are laughing, here is some food for > thought. I built a device, last monday to be precise, that when fed > signals through a length of wire, I could send an electrical signal at a > speed of, by varying a control, less than C, C, and greater than C. Some > claim it is the transformer effect; okay. I am building a bigger model, > with a noninductive winding. The geometry is what determines propagation > speed, not of phase, but of a CHANGE in the steady signal. In other > words, it becomes possible to 'tap out morse' at superluminal. I and > another scientist on the internet are working on a cordless version of > this. It uses an antenna mad of a special material to send the signal. > The material information is proprietary, so don't ask. Just thought I > would let you know that, like some of you told me to do, "I am working > on it." ;) Check out http://www.autodynamics.org/ (Society for Autodynamics - picks up where special relativity leaves off, including breaking the light speed barrier.) You may find the equations on this site interesting. > Best regards, > Kyle R. Mcallister B Franchuk. From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["774" "Saturday" "30" "January" "1999" "12:05:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 774 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00975 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:06:52 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA00970 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id MQDAa20091; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:05:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc... Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:05:29 EST >....As far as what they would do to us...if they are advanced > enough to be travelling the galaxy, why would they need > to trample a petty civilization like us? Let me ask you: > do you go up to an anthill and look at it? I do. Do you try > to establish communication with said anthill? I used to. > Most of the time, we just pass anthills over. The > older generation, more wiser, usually ignores them..... Unless of course you think they might spread. Or you want to expant your backyard. re the odd anthill, but there isn't a corner of this glob we haven't wandered through and mixed up a bit. A few rainforests in the way. A dam to control an irratable river. ead predator species that we thought migh become a problem one day. Preditors like us.. Kelly From VM Mon Feb 1 09:52:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1689" "Saturday" "30" "January" "1999" "14:26:45" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1689 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12566 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:30:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12555 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p118.gnt.com [204.49.89.118]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA25507; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:29:49 -0600 Message-ID: <000501be4c8e$db2a92e0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Fermi's Paradox, etc... Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:26:45 -0600 Hmm, why didn't we use this analogy before? > >....As far as what they would do to us...if they are advanced > > enough to be travelling the galaxy, why would they need > > to trample a petty civilization like us? 1) Sheer accident, we got in the way of their backyard swimming pool... 2) Pest control... 3) Petty civilizations taste good... > > do you go up to an anthill and look at it? I do. Do you try > > to establish communication with said anthill? I used to. Only when I was a child. Then like as not I would stomp on it just to see what happened. well if you call poking it with a stick communicating... > > Most of the time, we just pass anthills over. The > > older generation, more wiser, usually ignores them..... See 1-3 above. > > Unless of course you think they might spread. Or you want to expant your > backyard. > > re the odd anthill, but there isn't a corner of this glob we > haven't wandered > through and mixed up a bit. A few rainforests in the way. A dam > to control > an irratable river. > > ead predator species that we thought migh become a problem one > day. Preditors > like us.. Of course, so far this analogy assumes we aren't a different species of ant; which will do its best to wipe out the nest of ANY other queen, even of the same species. Or worse, an ant lion or trap door spider, ummm, we taste good too! Okay, lets get even more intelligent, an anteater, arguably quite advanced compared to an ant. A monkey, poke the stick in and lick the ants off. A man, lets fry them and eat them... Ahh well, there don't seem to be any E.T.s out there which maybe is just as well. p.s. Kelly, you are killing my spell checker again! Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 1 14:08:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["541" "Monday" "1" "February" "1999" "14:22:47" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "14" "starship-design: Old news?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 541 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06861 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06775 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06073; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:21:13 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36B61B27.76908969@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199901191701.LAA25447@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: erps-list@lunacity.com, "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Old news? Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:22:47 -0700 International Space Development Conference, http://www.nss.org/isdc/ ISD Conference, May 1999, Houston sponsored by the National Space Society, a leading CATS institution, will be held in Houston at the end of May. The cost is only $65 for the 2 1/2 day conference. There will be insider tours of the Johnson Space Center and a chance to meet Dr. Bob Zubrin, leader in the "Mars Direct" scheme, and four Apollo astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin, not only a nice guy but the president of NSS and the second man to walk on Luna.! From VM Thu Feb 4 17:26:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4631" "Thursday" "4" "February" "1999" "19:01:26" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "117" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Metallic Heat Shield Ready For Flight (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4631 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07156 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:05:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07147 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p346.gnt.com [204.49.91.154]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA05688 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:05:03 -0600 Message-ID: <000401be50a3$0e330ab0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Metallic Heat Shield Ready For Flight (fwd) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:01:26 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:53 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: X-33 Metallic Heat Shield Ready For Flight (fwd) From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: X-33 Metallic Heat Shield Ready For Flight Followup-To: sci.space.policy Date: 4 Feb 1999 14:31 UT Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Lines: 95 Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC February 3, 1999 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 256/544-0031) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA (Phone: 805/572-4153) RELEASE: 99-9 X-33 METALLIC HEAT SHIELD 'READY FOR FLIGHT' Development of a low-cost space plane took a step forward last month when one of three technologies essential to its success was declared "ready for flight". The rugged, metallic thermal-protection panels designed for NASA's X-33 technology demonstrator passed an intensive test series that included sessions in high-speed, high-temperature wind tunnels. The panels also were strapped to the bottom of a NASA F- 15 aircraft and flight-tested at nearly 1.5-times the speed of sound. Additional laboratory tests duplicated the environment the X- 33's outer skin will encounter while flying roughly 60 miles high at more than 13 times the speed of sound. Also, a thermal-panel fit test successfully demonstrated the ease of panel installation and removal. The thermal protection system combines aircraft and space- plane design, using easy-to-maintain metallic panels placed over insulating material. As the X-33 flies through the upper atmosphere, the panels will protect the vehicle from aerodynamic stress and temperatures comparable to those a reusable launch vehicle would encounter while re-entering Earth's atmosphere. Tests have verified that the metallic thermal-protection system will protect vehicles from temperatures near 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. "NASA is focusing on creating a next generation of reusable launch vehicles that will dramatically cut the costs associated with getting into space," said Dan Dumbacher, NASA X-33 deputy program manager. "One way to cut costs is to design rugged systems that require less maintenance and that are more airplane- like in their operations. "By developing and proving these systems, we're creating the ability to build space planes that eventually will fly to orbit, return for servicing, and launch again as often as today's commercial airplanes make scheduled flights," he added. Dumbacher is assigned to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, the lead center for developing future space transportation systems. The remaining two technologies important for low-cost space access are an efficient propulsion system ideally suited to power a lifting body and, more importantly, lightweight-yet-strong composite cryogenic fuel tanks and structures to minimize vehicle weight. Work on those two challenging technologies continues as the X-33 program enters a phase of intense testing and qualification of the vehicle's components. NASA expects the metallic thermal-protection panels -- developed and built by team member BFGoodrich Aerospace/Aerostructures Group in Chula Vista, CA -- to dramatically cut maintenance time and costs associated with more fragile thermal-tile systems. Because the metallic panels on the lower surfaces of the X-33 make up the vehicle's windward, aerodynamic structural shell, the system also will obtain significant weight savings over traditional thermal systems, while being much more durable and waterproof. The X-33 is a half-scale technology demonstrator of a full- scale, commercially developed reusable launch vehicle (RLV) which Lockheed Martin has named "VentureStar", planned for development after the turn of the century. Through airplane-like operations and a single-stage-to-orbit design, a full-scale RLV could dramatically reduce the cost of putting payloads into space from $10,000 per pound to $1,000 per pound. The X-33 is scheduled to make as many as 15 test flights from Edwards Air Force Base, CA, to Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT, beginning in 2000. Although suborbital, the X-33 will fly high enough and fast enough to encounter conditions similar to those experienced on an orbital flight path to fully prove its systems and performance. - end - From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4214" "Friday" "5" "February" "1999" "20:12:22" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "69" "starship-design: assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4214 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17424 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA17417 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.76.97.81]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990206011432.JQKR22708@oemcomputer> for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:14:32 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990205201222.007953b0@worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: clmanges@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: assorted musings Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 20:12:22 -0500 Greetings, In his message of Jan 29, Ben Franchuk stated that "just a few" computers would suffice to design a starship. No offense, Ben, but this response does not display an understanding of the complexities of the problem. I read the article, and the guy who's wanting to do this is looking at, I think a whole century just to DESIGN it. Let's see why. Let's say we need an actuator arm to open and close a ventilation louver. No-brainer, right? A simple bar with some holes drilled in it. But what if this ventilation louver is, say, about thirty feet across, as may be the case in a ship this size? At this size, it wouldn't be unthinkable for the mass of the louver blades to approach, say, half a ton. Now let's say that we may want to move them very quickly (well, you never know). Regardless how well balanced and lubricated these are, mass carries inertia with it, and this actuator arm will have to put up with the strain. Back in the old days, a neanderthal engineer would have squinted at the device and said, "Well, I think such-and-such a size will do," and they would have just put up a hunk of iron on it, and if it broke, they'd replace it with a bigger hunk. But we want this starship part to work right the FIRST time, every time, for a verrrry LONG time. There are no non-critical parts on a generation ship, and at this scale, we find ourselves considering such esoteric design criteria as engineering materails (metal? plastic? wood? bone?), strength of materials, safety factor, stress fatigue, fabrication method (molded, cast, forged, stamped, machined, extruded, welded, laminated, or some combination), and possible special treatment (heat-treated, sress-relieved (thermal or vibratory), plated, coated, anodized, or painted). Oh, and try not to go over budget. Just for kicks, try designing this exact part at home, on your own computer. Use an arbitrary number of louver blades, and when you're done with that, sit back for a moment and give some thought to the motor and transmission that will have to move it. Now you're looking at motor power supply (electric or fluidic), motor control, transmission designs, lubrication, overload cutout and reset, position sensor, and control telemetry and alarms, to name a few. Now, multiply this complexity by the umpteen-to-the-bajillionth other details of a starship (or any project of this size). It's enough to make you dizzy. Really, it amazes me sometimes, when I realize that a great deal of the stuff we use today was designed to four significant figures, using log tables and slide rules. I fully agree that people are necessary to such projects for our problem-solving ability, and our creativity and insight, but really, this is going to take as whole lot more than "just a few" computers (especially considering the tweakiness of the ones we have now). On to the next thing . . . I've been thinking about the recent dialog on the nature of any ET's who might be out there, and I have to say that I disagree that they'd be trying to wipe us out. Looking at the anthill analogy, would you be so quick to kick that ant-nest if you knew the ants might blow your foot off? I think that, if they are out there watching us, they would likely say, "These creatures are highly unstable and have nuclear weapons! Let's go somewhere else for a while." I wouldn't be surprised if we are now under quarantine. Besides, starships and their crews are very expensive, and I don't see a successful star-traveling race as being rash enough to risk them at a long-distance war, especially when they already have the means to find other places to go. I rather think that they would have a lot in common with us (Aliens are people too!). The evolutionary forces which drive a species to supremacy tend, I think, to narrow the choices. Yes, they will be aggressive and inquisitive, and in search of the best resources and new discoveries, but they'll be cautious as well. MESSAGE TO HOMEWORLD, FROM EXPLORATORY FLEET: ARRIVED AT TARGET SYSTEM, FOUND LIVEABLE PLANET WITH NUMEROUS ACTIVE ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES. HAVE LAUNCHED ROBOT OBSERVER; LEAVING AT ONCE FOR NEXT TARGET SYSTEM. HOPE THEY DIDN'T NOTICE. Keep looking up, Curtis Manges From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1390" "Saturday" "6" "February" "1999" "16:46:50" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "starship-design: Photonic Computers...." "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 OAA02185 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02171 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:51:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p299.gnt.com [204.49.91.107]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA28958 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:50:57 -0600 Message-ID: <000801be5222$95bc3da0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Photonic Computers.... Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 16:46:50 -0600 THE FIRST 3D PHOTONIC CRYSTAL operating at a wavelength of 1.5 microns, the all-important preferred wavelength for light traveling down optical fibers, has been devised by scientists at Sandia (Shawn Lin, slin@sandia.gov). Basically, a photonic crystal is to light what a semiconductor is to electrons: some photon energies are permitted while others are excluded. The exclusion comes about by a careful interleaving of materials with very different indices of refraction. The Sandia crystal is actually a tiny pile of criss-crossed polysilicon rods with air in between. Photonic crystals will be ingredients in future optical transistors---by deflecting light they will be able to act as optical switches at THz speeds; by trapping light they will be able to produce optical amplification within cavities. The crystals will also be part of other optical integrated circuit components such as low-power nanolasers and as waveguides. (Optics Letters, 1 Jan 1999; see also Physics Today, Jan 1999.) =====================,,,========================= ====================(o o)======================== ================oOO==(_)==OOo==================== lparker@cacaphony.net ================ooooO==Ooooo===================== ================( )==( )===================== =================\ (====) /====================== ==================\_)==(_/======================= From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1498" "Saturday" "6" "February" "1999" "23:30:13" "+0000" "Andrew West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: Photonic Computers...." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1498 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA11636 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:28:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from serv1.is1.u-net.net (serv1.is1.u-net.net [195.102.240.129]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11582 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [195.50.105.128] (helo=daishi) by serv1.is1.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 2.00 #2) for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu id 109H7O-0006EN-00; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:26:31 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990206233013.007cd100@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) In-Reply-To: <000801be5222$95bc3da0$0101a8c0@claymore> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Andrew West From: Andrew West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Photonic Computers.... Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 23:30:13 +0000 At 16:46 06/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >THE FIRST 3D PHOTONIC CRYSTAL operating at a >wavelength of 1.5 microns, the all-important preferred wavelength >for light traveling down optical fibers, has been devised by >scientists at Sandia (Shawn Lin, slin@sandia.gov). Basically, a >photonic crystal is to light what a semiconductor is to electrons: >some photon energies are permitted while others are excluded. >The exclusion comes about by a careful interleaving of materials >with very different indices of refraction. The Sandia crystal is >actually a tiny pile of criss-crossed polysilicon rods with air in >between. Photonic crystals will be ingredients in future optical >transistors---by deflecting light they will be able to act as optical >switches at THz speeds; by trapping light they will be able to >produce optical amplification within cavities. The crystals will >also be part of other optical integrated circuit components such as >low-power nanolasers and as waveguides. (Optics Letters, 1 Jan >1999; see also Physics Today, Jan 1999.) Talking of superfast transistors/computers, how much would you need a computer to automate a long journey? I wonder just how much it'd have to do, and whether it'd even be more than what current rocket flights have to do - afterall, they have to monitor more things, as they are travelling in the atmosphere some of the time, so there are more unpredicatable occurances.. Would you need a fast computer to deal with an intersterral flight? From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1822" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "01:25:09" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "27" "starship-design: photonic computers" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1822 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA08428 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08419 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.76.123.93]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990207062611.BYYR8151@oemcomputer> for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 06:26:11 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990207012509.00796680@worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: clmanges@worldnet.att.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: photonic computers Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 01:25:09 -0500 Andrew West has a good point about possibly not needing superfast computers to operate a spacecraft during a long journey, but there may be more to that issue . . . I can think of a couple of great advantages to it, though: for designing the ship, or any complex device, such a machine would provide the speed needed for real-time simulations, so no time need be wasted in building actual experimental models. I've heard that faster computers would also aid in weather prediction and climate studies. One of the biggest advantages to it, though, is immunity to such stuff as RFI and EMI. Also, it eliminates the problems with such other electrical hash as junction capacitance problems and crosstalk, and might be distortion-free as well. Junction capacitance, BTW, was a problem that plagued designers of early transistor circuits; it limited the high frequency attainable, and it took a while before transistor circuits could be made to match the high-freq performance of vacuum tubes. Add in that a circuit failure in a photonic device would not cause any damage downstream; for that matter, I can't imagine it being possible to overload such a thing, at least not in the sense that an electrical circuit can be. It's funny, I was just writing to a friend a couple weeks ago and telling him that my idea of the perfect computer (or at least a future kind of computer) would be the Magic Mirror. It hangs on the wall, and when it's off it just looks like a mirror (though there are other possibilities, I'm sure), but when you want to use it, you just talk to it and tell it what to do, and it does it. I think we're getting closer to that. As to current rocket flights, I think I read somewhere that they're still using 386's on new spacecraft . . . they just better not be running Win 98. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1922" "Saturday" "6" "February" "1999" "22:47:54" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "37" "starship-design: photonic computers" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1922 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11460 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:48:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA11451 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA01737 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id WAA15942; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:47:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14013.14106.547045.60987@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990207012509.00796680@worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.6.32.19990207012509.00796680@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.66 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: photonic computers Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:47:54 -0800 (PST) Curtis Manges writes: > It's funny, I was just writing to a friend a couple weeks ago and telling > him that my idea of the perfect computer (or at least a future kind of > computer) would be the Magic Mirror. It hangs on the wall, and when it's > off it just looks like a mirror (though there are other possibilities, I'm > sure), but when you want to use it, you just talk to it and tell it what to > do, and it does it. I think we're getting closer to that. I was going to mention this just after the reference to the article on the very slow starship design, and coincidentally enough this reminds me again. Has anyone read Gene Wolfe's "Long Sun" series (_Nightside the Long Sun_, _Lake of the Long Sun_, _Calde' of the Long Sun_, _Exodus from the Long Sun_)? It's an interesting (although perhaps not easy-to-read) series set on a generation starship which seems to have stagnated a bit. The original computer personalities that apparently ran the ship have degenerated, and so has the culture of the people who worshiped these personalities in their religion, and as one comes to see through the series, the ship is only barely running too. And they have "magic mirror" style computers as you describe. > As to current rocket flights, I think I read somewhere that they're still > using 386's on new spacecraft . . . they just better not be running Win 98. > Keep looking up, I believe there is a radiation-hardened version of the 80386 which is used on some recent spacecraft. A variety of processors are used, though (for example, the Mars Pathfinder lander used a version of the IBM RS/6000 processor and the Sojourner Rover used an Intel 8085 processor). And scarily enough, part of the computer network on the International Space Station is to be based on a Windows NT file server and Windows 95. Although some of the more critical software will be running under Solaris x86, at least. From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["692" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "00:50:37" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "starship-design: An Approach Based on Percolation Theory (http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.La" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 692 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA12940 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA12935 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p313.gnt.com [204.49.91.121]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA00701 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:55:32 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01be5266$2ad07940$0101a8c0@claymore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BE5233.E0360940" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: An Approach Based on Percolation Theory (http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.La Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:50:37 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BE5233.E0360940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Revisiting Fermi's Paradox... http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/percolation.htp Lee Parker ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BE5233.E0360940 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=" An Approach Based on Percolation Theory.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=" An Approach Based on Percolation Theory.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/percolation.htp Modified=1055C3A05B52BE0134 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BE5233.E0360940-- From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["169" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "00:54:49" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: photonic computers" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 169 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA13220 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13214 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p313.gnt.com [204.49.91.121]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA00892; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:59:45 -0600 Message-ID: <001001be5266$c152e650$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990207012509.00796680@worldnet.att.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Curtis Manges" , Subject: RE: starship-design: photonic computers Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:54:49 -0600 The new space station will run off of Intel Pentium II based laptops, running Windows NT on one as a server, and 95 (currently, it may change) on the rest. Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["292" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "00:59:21" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: photonic computers" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 292 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA14463 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA14456 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p313.gnt.com [204.49.91.121]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id BAA01061; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 01:04:21 -0600 Message-ID: <001101be5267$638ce600$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <14013.14106.547045.60987@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" , Subject: RE: starship-design: photonic computers Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:59:21 -0600 Sorry, as Steve points out the MAIN computer uses a Solaris operating system, although it is still a laptop. The NT and Windows machines run the experiments, and I might mention the LAN is wireless also. Most of the software is off the shelf but there is some NASA-specific code. Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:10 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["184" "Saturday" "6" "February" "1999" "23:21:45" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "5" "starship-design: Sci. Am." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 184 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17373 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:21:48 -0800 (PST) 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 XAA17368 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante33.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante33.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.17]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id XAA27208 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:21:45 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante33.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id XAA07350 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:21:45 -0800 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: starship-design: Sci. Am. Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:21:45 -0800 (PST) There's a pretty good article on modern and soon-to-be-modern spaceflight in the Feb. issue of Scientific American. Worth picking up if you don't have a subscription Nels Lindberg From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2377" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "02:25:07" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "starship-design: Re: Use of materials from your web site" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2377 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17815 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:26:21 -0800 (PST) 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 XAA17807 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LVOBa20091; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:25:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1f45896b.36bd3fd3@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: pfreeman@direct.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Use of materials from your web site Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:25:07 EST > Subj: Use of materials from your web site > Date: Sat, Feb 6, 1999 2:17 PM EST > From: pfreeman@direct.ca > X-From: pfreeman@direct.ca (Philip Freeman) > To: KellySt@aol.com > > Sir or Madame: > I am a physics teacher in Richmond BC Canada, and am currently preparing to > teach, for the first time, a general science class for grade 10 students. > The curriculum is unfortunately very scattered and it is my hope to > structure it and provide the students with some sense of the > inteconnectedness of the sciences by basing the course around a central > project. After considering various options I am going to try having the > class design a starship, this being an endevour which decidedly calls for an > understanding of all sciences. > > In searching for materials I found your very interesting web site. I would > like to use some materials from this site for teaching purposes... this > might include making photocopies of printouts and some rewriting and > simplification. I do not want to give the students too much material, lest > they either be overwhelmed or have their own chances for creative insight > damped/preempted. > > I would not want to do make use of your work, however, if your members > believed that this violated their intellectual property rights or offended > them in any way. > > I did not note a use policy (though I may have missed it) but there was your > address... so I trouble you. > What use do you feel is appropriate of these materials and what > acknowledgement should be made to protect your rights and to give fair > credit to the originators and developers of these ideas? > > Thank your for your time and trouble... > > Philip Freeman > pfreeman@direct.ca Dear Philip, We would be very happy for the site to be of help to you and your students. One of the reasons for the site, and the group, was to disseminate information on this topic and to interest and inspire others interest in it. Students were were always of particular interest in this, thou we have not been able to pursue this as much as we originally hoped. Please make as much use of the material as you like, thou we would prefer you include reference to our site where appropriate. I'll forward you request to the group to confirm their is no objection, or further terms of use they would like respected. Thank you for your interest. Kelly Starks From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3391" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "02:24:59" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3391 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17740 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:25:37 -0800 (PST) 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 XAA17732 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id ESAWa20557 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:24:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6b4f1430.36bd3fcb@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: assorted musings Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 02:24:59 EST > Subj: starship-design: assorted musings > Date: Fri, Feb 5, 1999 8:34 PM EST > From: clmanges@worldnet.att.net > X-From: clmanges@worldnet.att.net (Curtis Manges) > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Reply-to: clmanges@worldnet.att.net (Curtis Manges) > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > Greetings, > In his message of Jan 29, Ben Franchuk stated that "just a few" computers > would suffice to design a starship. No offense, Ben, but this response does > not display an understanding of the complexities of the problem. I read the > article, and the guy who's wanting to do this is looking at, I think a > whole century just to DESIGN it. Let's see why. > Let's say we need an actuator arm to open and close a ventilation louver. > No-brainer, right? A simple bar with some holes drilled in it. But what if > this ventilation louver is, say, about thirty feet across, as may be the > case in a ship this size? At this size, it wouldn't be unthinkable for the > mass of the louver blades to approach, say, half a ton. Now let's say that > we may want to move them very quickly (well, you never know). Regardless > how well balanced and lubricated these are, mass carries inertia with it, > and this actuator arm will have to put up with the strain. > Back in the old days, a neanderthal engineer would have squinted at the > device and said, "Well, I think such-and-such a size will do," and they > would have just put up a hunk of iron on it, and if it broke, they'd > replace it with a bigger hunk. But we want this starship part to work right > the FIRST time, every time, for a verrrry LONG time. There are no > non-critical parts on a generation ship, and at this scale, we find > ourselves considering such esoteric design criteria as engineering > materails (metal? plastic? wood? bone?), strength of materials, safety > factor, stress fatigue, fabrication method (molded, cast, forged, stamped, > machined, extruded, welded, laminated, or some combination), and possible > special treatment (heat-treated, sress-relieved (thermal or vibratory), > plated, coated, anodized, or painted).----- I'ld like to mention that most of the things nessisary for such an enterprize, have been designed already. So while its true that "A" computer couldn't do the work (in a usefull amount of time), There are many computers that have done much of the work. >>>> > On to the next thing . . . > > I've been thinking about the recent dialog on the nature of any ET's who > might be out there, and I have to say that I disagree that they'd be trying > to wipe us out. Looking at the anthill analogy, would you be so quick to > kick that ant-nest if you knew the ants might blow your foot off? I think > that, if they are out there watching us, they would likely say, "These > creatures are highly unstable and have nuclear weapons! Let's go somewhere > else for a while." === Thats not how dangerous ants, or other life forms, are treated by us now. For example in Houston when I was there, there was a new species of ants, Fire Ants. They could be lethal, and had killed several people. Mosqitoes also have a long history of causing human death. Far from a live and let live attitude, we've prefered a preemptive strike attitude. Destroying and suppresing them to the limits of our abilities, within any areas we go in. > Curtis Manges Kelly Starks From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1599" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "08:38:13" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "starship-design: On ET's again" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1599 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08506 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 06:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA08450 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 06:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p306.gnt.com [204.49.91.114]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA17095; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:42:42 -0600 Message-ID: <001301be52a7$7d799a50$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <6b4f1430.36bd3fcb@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: starship-design: On ET's again Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:38:13 -0600 More about ET's likely say, "These > > creatures are highly unstable and have nuclear weapons! Let's > go somewhere > > else for a while." === If you happen upon a child sitting in the middle of the street with a bazooka, do you go somewhere else to play for awhile, or do you call the authorities (after going somewhere else of course)? Pelegrino's reasoning is that no matter how strange alien life may be, one law remains the same - evolution. They are at the top of their food chain wherever they are from and didn't get there by ignoring potential predators or competition. Even if we suppose that they had managed to evolve beyond the fear of others, it still wouldn't make sense to leave _dangerous_ little tykes like us laying around... > That's not how dangerous ants, or other life forms, are treated by > us now. For > example in Houston when I was there, there was a new species of ants, Fire > Ants. They could be lethal, and had killed several people. > Mosquitoes also > have a long history of causing human death. Far from a live and let live > attitude, we've preferred a preemptive strike attitude. Destroying and > suppressing them to the limits of our abilities, within any areas we go in. Which is precisely how Pelegrino's aliens reacted. "So sorry, nothing personal you understand, you are just too aggressive and dangerous for us to permit you to live..." so they send out the galactic pesticide ships. Lee Parker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If you sold your soul in the 80's... at least it was the height of the market. - The Dennis Miller Show From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["606" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "10:57:19" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "starship-design: The 11 billion dollar bottle of wine" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 JAA25815 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 09:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25806 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 09:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p298.gnt.com [204.49.91.106]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA27373 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 11:01:34 -0600 Message-ID: <001401be52ba$ec1b9d60$0101a8c0@claymore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE5288.A1812D60" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: The 11 billion dollar bottle of wine Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:57:19 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE5288.A1812D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some good info here on the COST of interstellar travel. http://www.costik.com/inttrade.html Lee Parker ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE5288.A1812D60 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="costik.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="costik.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.costik.com/inttrade.html Modified=D07EF617AE52BE011A ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE5288.A1812D60-- From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1118" "Sunday" "7" "February" "1999" "22:33:58" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "19" "starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1118 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26988 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 19:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26979 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 19:35:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.76.98.28]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990208033456.CHFQ9665@oemcomputer> for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 03:34:56 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990207223358.007964a0@worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: clmanges@worldnet.att.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 22:33:58 -0500 Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it doesn't seem to account for the comparative density of stars closer to the center of the galaxy, as opposed to where we are, out closer to the rim. This could be a factor to consider. Colonization has a purpose, after all; it's a search for more living space and/or resources, and those are going to be more abundant and therefor easier to get to at the center; there will be more choices within a given radius of home. Time taken to use those up before expanding further could slow the process. If things get crowded and wars break out over the more closely-spaced territories, it could further slow expansion. Still, given the time involved, they should have been here by now, and there's no reason to assume that life wouldn't develop from about the same starting time throughout the galaxy. Consider also that, in a more densely-populated area, there could be a higher turnover rate in colonization, especially in the case of territorial conflicts, and that would likely reset the clock, so to speak, for a colonization cycle. More to chew on . . . Curtis From VM Mon Feb 8 09:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["589" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "10:05:25" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 589 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10685 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA10642 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p273.gnt.com [204.49.91.33]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA06879; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:10:08 -0600 Message-ID: <000001be537c$d66c1450$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990207223358.007964a0@worldnet.att.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Curtis Manges" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:05:25 -0600 > Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it doesn't seem to > account for the comparative density of stars closer to the center of the > galaxy, as opposed to where we are, out closer to the rim. Stars closer to the center of the galaxy are LESS likely to support intelligent life period. They are typically younger to start with, and the radiation levels there are probably extreme. Most theories I have heard state that the most likely places are older stars far out on the arms, even farther than we are ourselves. But it does account for density. Read closer. Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 8 10:59:07 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["907" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "11:45:07" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: Photonic Computers...." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 907 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25723 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:42:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25645 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:42:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06237 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:42:45 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36BF30B3.8331AA96@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.6.32.19990206233013.007cd100@mail.u-net.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Photonic Computers.... Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 11:45:07 -0700 > > Talking of superfast transistors/computers, how much would you need a > computer to automate a long journey? I wonder just how much it'd have to > do, and whether it'd even be more than what current rocket flights have to > do - afterall, they have to monitor more things, as they are travelling in > the atmosphere some of the time, so there are more unpredicatable occurances.. > > Would you need a fast computer to deal with an intersterral flight? > I don't think fast is needed in star ship designs. Large memory, reliable operation and recylibilty would be the factors in operation. hmmm a intel 300086 running windows 3000 with no system backup? not something I want to have in my spacecraft. More and more I think of space craft I think of the classic star trek Enterprize. Something Scotty could fix with a few dylithum crystals,a few savaged modules and a bottle of Scotch. Ben. From VM Mon Feb 8 12:51:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6058" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "13:41:24" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "111" "starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6058 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05493 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05452 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin46.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.46]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11158 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:39:08 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36BF4BF4.16D44B75@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.6.32.19990205201222.007953b0@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: more assorted musings Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:41:24 -0700 Curtis Manges wrote: > > Greetings, > In his message of Jan 29, Ben Franchuk stated that "just a few" computers > would suffice to design a starship. No offense, Ben, but this response does > not display an understanding of the complexities of the problem. I read the > article, and the guy who's wanting to do this is looking at, I think a > whole century just to DESIGN it. Let's see why. Got your pad and pen ready for more creative replies? Star ship design is a complex problem but it still see the design for a space craft still being designed with no more than a pad and paper and a calculator for the level of design that is needed here. That is not to say a mark IV vulcan computer is needed for the inter-plasma antimatter converter design. Computers and electronics and fusion power will be needed in starship and MUST be able repair and redesign all the components in the space craft since people using them can't call home for a easy fix. > Let's say we need an actuator arm to open and close a ventilation louver. > No-brainer, right? A simple bar with some holes drilled in it. But what if > this ventilation louver is, say, about thirty feet across, as may be the > case in a ship this size? At this size, it wouldn't be unthinkable for the > mass of the louver blades to approach, say, half a ton. Now let's say that > we may want to move them very quickly (well, you never know). Regardless > how well balanced and lubricated these are, mass carries inertia with it, > and this actuator arm will have to put up with the strain. I think a good in-house single stage to orbit shuttle is a better design chalenge. > Back in the old days, a neanderthal engineer would have squinted at the > device and said, "Well, I think such-and-such a size will do," and they > would have just put up a hunk of iron on it, and if it broke, they'd > replace it with a bigger hunk. But we want this starship part to work right > the FIRST time, every time, for a verrrry LONG time. There are no > non-critical parts on a generation ship, and at this scale, we find > ourselves considering such esoteric design criteria as engineering > materails (metal? plastic? wood? bone?), strength of materials, safety > factor, stress fatigue, fabrication method (molded, cast, forged, stamped, > machined, extruded, welded, laminated, or some combination), and possible > special treatment (heat-treated, sress-relieved (thermal or vibratory), > plated, coated, anodized, or painted). > Oh, and try not to go over budget. F**K with the budget. This is a global project that reflects the best of mankind. Oh I forgot this project is only for the very rich gready people that get rich quick? This project will never be economicly feasable in the near future because our economic system is based on making money not on the true value of food,shelter,the earth,knowlage,social togetherness, and population control. Only with this system will the cost seem reasonable. The space craft mechanical design is only about 1/4 of the total design. A whole new human/wildife/earth infro-structure needs to be developed because like the earth a space-craft can't be exploted for a few rich. > Just for kicks, try designing this exact part at home, on your own > computer. Use an arbitrary number of louver blades, and when you're done > with that, sit back for a moment and give some thought to the motor and > transmission that will have to move it. Now you're looking at motor power > supply (electric or fluidic), motor control, transmission designs, > lubrication, overload cutout and reset, position sensor, and control > telemetry and alarms, to name a few. Now, multiply this complexity by the > umpteen-to-the-bajillionth other details of a starship (or any project of > this size). It's enough to make you dizzy. Well it is a BIG project. > I fully agree that people are necessary to such projects for our > problem-solving ability, and our creativity and insight, but really, this > is going to take as whole lot more than "just a few" computers (especially > considering the tweakiness of the ones we have now). Computers and the net give us the opertunity to see the BIG picture and see the designs overall web of complexity. How ever for writing this email I am only using 10% of my computer. PS. I think computers needs to be redesined to something a lot simpler and slower for space ship design. Other than the fussion reactor design a 386 size pc could be usefull for most use. Contact me for hardware details of a ibm pc clone sized computer. > > On to the next thing . . . > > I've been thinking about the recent dialog on the nature of any ET's who > might be out there, and I have to say that I disagree that they'd be trying > to wipe us out. Looking at the anthill analogy, would you be so quick to > kick that ant-nest if you knew the ants might blow your foot off? I think > that, if they are out there watching us, they would likely say, "These > creatures are highly unstable and have nuclear weapons! Let's go somewhere > else for a while." I wouldn't be surprised if we are now under quarantine. > Besides, starships and their crews are very expensive, and I don't see a > successful star-traveling race as being rash enough to risk them at a > long-distance war, especially when they already have the means to find > other places to go. > I rather think that they would have a lot in common with us (Aliens are > people too!). The evolutionary forces which drive a species to supremacy > tend, I think, to narrow the choices. Yes, they will be aggressive and > inquisitive, and in search of the best resources and new discoveries, but > they'll be cautious as well. > MESSAGE TO HOMEWORLD, FROM EXPLORATORY FLEET: ARRIVED AT TARGET SYSTEM, > FOUND LIVEABLE PLANET WITH NUMEROUS ACTIVE ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES. HAVE > LAUNCHED ROBOT OBSERVER; LEAVING AT ONCE FOR NEXT TARGET SYSTEM. HOPE THEY > DIDN'T NOTICE. Very good point. Ben. From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1294" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "22:49:20" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09045 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:56:04 -0800 (PST) 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 TAA09031 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 5FSFa05517; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:49:20 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <6e159135.36bfb040@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:49:20 EST > F**K with the budget. This is a global project that reflects > the best of mankind. Oh I forgot this project is only for > the very rich gready people that get rich quick? Of course this is a project for the rich! Only the filthy rich countries of the world have the resources, tallent, or technlogy to attempt anything like this. Exploration has always been a sport for the rich. Fortunaly the U.S. is the richestes and greedeest of them all, so we can suport the biggest space program, of them all. >This project will never be economicly feasable in the > near future because our economic system is based on > making money not on the true value of food,shelter,the > earth,knowlage, Economics is entirely about finding the absolute and relative values of these things. Its measured in money. >social togetherness, and population control. Oh please. Space stunts to unite the world failed misurably a long time ago and ever since. Population control is very regional. Developed countries are all having population decline trends (at current rates Japan and Italy will cease to exist in 200 years). Undeveloped countries aer trying to develop (which will solve ther population problems. The reason is the economics of having children in non-subsistence economies. Kelly From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2115" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "22:48:42" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 UAA11950 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:04:11 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA11938 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 1UKNa20091; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:42 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jthunderbird@nternet.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:42 EST >Hi, > > I came on some of your pages at metalab.unc.edu > discussing starship drives. I like to tout the proton- > boron fusion reaction cycle, because it produces no > neutrons, making it inherently cleaner than others. I > feel this is an important priority whenever there are > people in the neighborhood, so I put that in my own > stardrive sketch. > http://www.geocities.com/~jthunderbird/drive.html > > I like to put my fusion reaction out of the body of > the ship, back in the jet, also for hygeine. I haven't > made any quantitative study of the efficiency factor > in terms of thermodynamics; it seems likely that the > nearer to the ship, the more efficiently this would > serve as a reaction engine. Fusion is initiated by > injection from a boron linac, into the jet of > (recombining) atomic hydrogen. The primary reaction > produces alphas only, easily shielded. > > I used a Broussard ramscoop to supplement onboard > fuel, so your discouraging asessment of the prospects > of this technology will need further checking. > > If you want to post public coments, I have a speculative > technology board at http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage > which also has other neat stuff, like my Paper Cannon > launch technique proposal. That one will take some > high-powered simulation to see if it could be workable. > (It's not for people -- delta-V too high. Just the cheapest > way I can think of to get packages to orbital velocity.) > > Regards, > Johnny Thunderbird > http://fly.to/heavyLight Hi Johnny, Glad you liked the site. We always like to get some interest. ;) We did cover the proton-boron cycle, and I listed it in the fusion energy tables. I selected the Lithium-proton cycle since its a little more powerfull, and lithium is a structural metal (hence easier to handel in bulk without a tank). I also figured the main power plant should be hung behind the ship. Fortunatly these cycles are extreamly thermally efficent (virtually 100%) but the reactors efficency could be less. I'll CC the group on this reply so they can comment further if they wish. Thanks again. Kelly Starks From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["770" "Monday" "8" "February" "1999" "22:48:54" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 770 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11861 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:03:52 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA11855 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:03:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id DIIRa04798 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:54 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <467002b5.36bfb026@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Fermi, again . . . Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:54 EST > ==Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it > doesn't seem to account for the comparative density > of stars closer to the center of the galaxy, as opposed > to where we are, out closer to the rim. This could be a > factor to consider. Colonization has a purpose, after all; > it's a search for more living space and/or resources, > and those are going to be more abundant and therefor > easier to get to at the center; there will be more > choices within a given radius of home. Actually it works out just the opposite. In the galactic core the stars are all first generation. Nothing but hydrogen and helium. Its only the newer star systems out here, which have a relativly full periodic table worth of elements making up the solar system. Kelly From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2366" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "23:31:20" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2366 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA28983 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA28969 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 05:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne17p06.ozemail.com.au [203.108.112.70]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA21829 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:42:15 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <003801be5431$90693fe0$46706ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:31:20 +1000 Hi Group, As for the Galactic Core - why nobody there? Probably due to GRB detonations wiping planets out. Gamma-ray bursts probably limit life to the outer reaches of the Galaxy where the lower stellar density means larger separations between binary-pulsars [the probable triggers of GRBs] - problem is in the outer Galaxy there's been less processing of gas and less metals production i.e. fewer planets. Towards the Galactic core stellar near misses also increase in frequency and so many systems would be disrupted - planet losses, lethal comet showers etc. - that intelligence would be unlikely to develop. The sparsity of metals in the safer outer edges, and the dangers of the core might mean that in our Galaxy at least intelligence has only newly arrived. If "They" are in the initial stages of colonising then percolation theory might explain why they've missed us BUT remember it only works if interstellar travel is difficult to achieve. If it's as easy as it is in "Star Trek" then why aren't they here? Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: Curtis Manges To: Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 1:33 PM Subject: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . > Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it doesn't seem to >account for the comparative density of stars closer to the center of the >galaxy, as opposed to where we are, out closer to the rim. This could be a >factor to consider. Colonization has a purpose, after all; it's a search >for more living space and/or resources, and those are going to be more >abundant and therefor easier to get to at the center; there will be more >choices within a given radius of home. Time taken to use those up before >expanding further could slow the process. If things get crowded and wars >break out over the more closely-spaced territories, it could further slow >expansion. > Still, given the time involved, they should have been here by now, and >there's no reason to assume that life wouldn't develop from about the same >starting time throughout the galaxy. > Consider also that, in a more densely-populated area, there could be a >higher turnover rate in colonization, especially in the case of territorial >conflicts, and that would likely reset the clock, so to speak, for a >colonization cycle. > More to chew on . . . > Curtis > From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1834" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "23:48:24" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1834 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02431 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02426 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne17p06.ozemail.com.au [203.108.112.70]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA29286 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:03:27 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <008101be5434$8f45c720$46706ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:48:24 +1000 Hi Group, Hey Kelly you're wrong about stars in the core. They're actually a lot higher in metallicity than out here in the Galactic boon-docks. Why is this so? More processing because the gas-cloud density is much higher. Stars in the nuclear bulge, though, can be very old, low metallicity stars, but we only see them because so many are now red-giants after +10 billion years of life. The big, bright new stars are high metallicity, and the multitude of stars we don't see easily - small main-sequence types - are also high metallicity. The first generation thing is probably a bit unlikely anyway since there's good evidence that in the very early days of our Galaxy's formation the first stars were super-massive objects [+100 solar masses] that blew up in a few million years, so there was some metals around for the first "dwarf" main-sequence stars. Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 1:48 PM Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . >> ==Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it >> doesn't seem to account for the comparative density >> of stars closer to the center of the galaxy, as opposed >> to where we are, out closer to the rim. This could be a >> factor to consider. Colonization has a purpose, after all; >> it's a search for more living space and/or resources, >> and those are going to be more abundant and therefor >> easier to get to at the center; there will be more >> choices within a given radius of home. > >Actually it works out just the opposite. In the galactic core the stars are >all first generation. Nothing but hydrogen and helium. Its only the newer >star systems out here, which have a relativly full periodic table worth of >elements making up the solar system. > >Kelly > From VM Tue Feb 9 09:47:47 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["546" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "09:58:22" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 546 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06058 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:03:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA06016 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p204.gnt.com [204.49.89.204]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA17171; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:03:02 -0600 Message-ID: <002301be5445$051c9b30$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:58:22 -0600 > > I used a Broussard ramscoop to supplement onboard > > fuel, so your discouraging asessment of the prospects > > of this technology will need further checking. The last paper I saw published on the ISM gives a density of 0.05 for the local area out to about 150 ly and 0.001 after that. The average for the galaxy however, is closer to 10.0. The reason for the low local density was given as old supernova events in the local area. Which brings up a couple of questions, how long ago were these supernovas and where were they? Lee Parker From VM Tue Feb 9 10:16:03 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1373" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "09:55:34" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "33" "starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1373 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23369 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:55:42 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA23319 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante06.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante06.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.8]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id JAA22542; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:55:34 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante06.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id JAA81550; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:55:34 -0800 In-Reply-To: <002301be5445$051c9b30$0101a8c0@claymore> 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: "L. Clayton Parker" cc: KellySt@aol.com, jthunderbird@nternet.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:55:34 -0800 (PST) One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from any Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, L. Clayton Parker wrote: > > > > > I used a Broussard ramscoop to supplement onboard > > > fuel, so your discouraging asessment of the prospects > > > of this technology will need further checking. > > The last paper I saw published on the ISM gives a density of 0.05 for the > local area out to about 150 ly and 0.001 after that. The average for the > galaxy however, is closer to 10.0. The reason for the low local density was > given as old supernova events in the local area. > > Which brings up a couple of questions, how long ago were these supernovas > and where were they? > > Lee Parker > > From VM Tue Feb 9 10:34:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["420" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "12:23:46" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "starship-design: RE: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 420 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09128 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:28:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09045 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p301.gnt.com [204.49.91.109]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA32006; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:28:13 -0600 Message-ID: <002601be5459$551b2f20$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" Cc: Subject: starship-design: RE: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:23:46 -0600 > > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% > of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the > axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and > superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into > photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Well, if so, it would make ramjets REAL easy to spot.... Lee Parker From VM Tue Feb 9 12:17:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1847" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "13:10:52" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1847 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03620 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03595 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin46.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.46]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24180 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:08:23 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36C0964C.2C5489E8@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6e159135.36bfb040@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:10:52 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Of course this is a project for the rich! Only the filthy rich countries of > the world have the resources, tallent, or technlogy to attempt anything like > this. Exploration has always been a sport for the rich. Fortunaly the U.S. > is the richestes and greedeest of them all, so we can suport the biggest space > program, of them all. > Only the rich has the money. Resourses talent and techlogy or stupidy is not limited to one country or ideology. The USA may have the biggest space program, but why has it taken so long for cheap access into space with $1000 per lb payloads. > >This project will never be economicly feasable in the > > near future because our economic system is based on > > making money not on the true value of food,shelter,the > > earth,knowlage, > > Economics is entirely about finding the absolute and relative values of these > things. Its measured in money. Then why is the economic system so screwed up? ( I would like to continue this but it is off topic) > > social togetherness, and population control. > > Oh please. Space stunts to unite the world failed misurably a long time ago > and ever since. Population control is very regional. Developed countries are > all having population decline trends (at current rates Japan and Italy will > cease to exist in 200 years). Undeveloped countries aer trying to develop > (which will solve ther population problems. The reason is the economics of > having children in non-subsistence economies. Space stunts will never unite the world, nor will any other stunt. But any large space craft must be a global effort, and any space craft (like star ship design or the earth ) must have a substainable envorment. Populaton control is one factor in a substainable envorment. (now back to the topic of star ship design ) Ben. From VM Tue Feb 9 12:37:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["389" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "13:30:50" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . ." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 389 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14156 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14141 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin46.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.46]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25051 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:28:21 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36C09AFA.2487C7F6@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <467002b5.36bfb026@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . . Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:30:50 -0700 > Actually it works out just the opposite. In the galactic core the stars are > all first generation. Nothing but hydrogen and helium. Its only the newer > star systems out here, which have a relativly full periodic table worth of > elements making up the solar system. We live in a quiet area of space, closer to the center unstable events would have killed life off allready. Ben. From VM Tue Feb 9 12:37:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["805" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "13:27:08" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 805 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12365 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12347 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin46.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.46]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24976 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:24:39 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36C09A1C.499F16FD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:27:08 -0700 > > I like to put my fusion reaction out of the body of > > the ship, back in the jet, also for hygeine. I haven't > > made any quantitative study of the efficiency factor > > in terms of thermodynamics; it seems likely that the > > nearer to the ship, the more efficiently this would > > serve as a reaction engine. Fusion is initiated by > > injection from a boron linac, into the jet of > > (recombining) atomic hydrogen. The primary reaction > > produces alphas only, easily shielded. > > Some very good idea's there. I think the best we can get for speed is .7 C in the speed of matter moving. see: http://www.autodynamics.org/welcome.html Note even with a perfect engine as time slows down when you reach the speed of light, the output of the engine will drop off too since it slows down. Ben. From VM Tue Feb 9 13:06:43 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1276" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "12:48:03" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1276 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25006 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA24954 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05113 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28449; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14016.40707.882843.618611@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36C09A1C.499F16FD@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> <36C09A1C.499F16FD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk (Woodelf) writes: > I think the best we can > get for speed is .7 C in the speed of matter moving. > see: http://www.autodynamics.org/welcome.html I wouldn't trust that autodynamics.org web site for accurate scientific information. I will diplomatically say that I do not find their viewpoint representative of mainstream physics thinking. > Note even with a perfect engine as time slows down when you > reach the speed of light, the output of the engine will drop > off too since it slows down. Sigh. It seems there is a bottomless well of relativistic misconception I will never be able to drain. Time does not slow down _for the engine_. A non-accelerating observer will see time slow down on the ship as it accelerates away, but the ship itself does not experience any physical change other than acceleration. The laws of physics are the same no matter what speed you go; that's one of the fundamental principles of relativity. If you feed the same amount of fuel to the engine it will produce the same thrust, no matter when you do it or how fast you're traveling relative to anything else. It's been a while since I exhorted anyone to find and read Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_, and apparently it's time for a reminder. From VM Tue Feb 9 15:22:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3324" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "17:10:14" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "59" "starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3324 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06927 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:13:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06920 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-53.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.53]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA19168 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:13:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C0DC76.1EBA1C00@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> <36C09A1C.499F16FD@jetnet.ab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:10:14 -0800 Ben Franchuk (Woodelf) wrote: > Some very good idea's there. I think the best we can > get for speed is .7 C in the speed of matter moving. > see: http://www.autodynamics.org/welcome.html > Note even with a perfect engine as time slows down when you > reach the speed of light, the output of the engine will drop > off too since it slows down. Afraid not. You can't reach C with a normal engine...it thrusts at the same amount continuously. Remember the first postulate of relativity? The laws of physics are the same in EVERY reference frame? This applies here. Calculations have been done that show that you cannot accelerate to C by throwing mass out of your vehicle. You can't do it by slinging a particle or vehicle through a field of some type either. The best you can hope for is a way to "bend" spacetime around the vicinity of your object, and you might be able to exceed C. To do much even using the Levi-Civita solutions of General Relativity, you will need a magnetic field strength of ~10^18 Tesla. To do the exotic warping, where you need tension higher than actual density, you will need a much higher regime. Or, you can do what I do: try to figure out how to cheat. If you can cheat a bit, you might find a way to do it without all that power. I have personally tested one such device, and have measured a _possible_ weight change of .5%. This is not yet confirmed, so don't get your hopes up. It is possibly a magnetic effect. Autodynamics-don't trust it. Carezani conveniently ignores many known facts, especially his energy calculations for accelerating particles. The relativistic predictions have been confirmed EXPERIMENTALLY in the lab, not just on paper. Do get a couple of books: 1. "Space-time Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor., 2. "Black holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip Thorne. These are excellent books on the subjects. But I ask you to NOT do the following: 1. Do not close your mind to the possibility that either SR or GR may one day be falsified; or any other theory for that matter. 2. Do not believe unwarranted assumptions; such as: "Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum." (see my notes below) 3. Don't disregard an experimental result on the grounds that it disagrees with conventionally accepted theory. 4. If you do an experiment, and get a strange result, ask yourself: "How am I fooling myself? What might I have overlooked that could account for my anomalous result?" Faster than light?: It happens. It's true, everywhere you look, there is a superluminal process taking place. It is called the "EPR effect," but don't get your hopes up; it cannot be used to transfer meaningful information. Can there be faster than light transfer of information? Probably. I have personally done an experiment where I had this as a result. On wednesday, if all goes well, I will do this again with a double modulated signal. The modulation I used? FM. The setup is proprietary. So, I give this to you as simply an interesting tidbit. Don't go running around and tell everyone that it has been done, because I could be wrong. And for all you know, I could just be some idiot thinking this up for idle pleasure. What my point is: don't give up on it. There are serious attempts to do it. Well, that about does it for now. Best regards, Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Feb 9 15:50:21 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["735" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "15:33:05" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "17" "starship-design: Spacetime Physics" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 735 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16481 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16464 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA16170 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29011; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14016.50609.281515.262246@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Spacetime Physics Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:33:05 -0800 (PST) _Spacetime Physics_, 2nd ed., by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, is in print and easy to obtain. Here are URLs that you can use to order the book through a couple of on-line bookstores. http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibliographic?offset=4058641&datafile=/view/stock/tec.data http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716723271/qid%3D918597711/002-3046957-6590440 It's published by W. H. Freeman & Co. and the ISBN is 0716723271 if you want to order a copy through a local bookstore. I recommend this book most highly for any beginning student of special relativity. It has an extremely clear and comprehensive presentation with many exercises and figures, and you only need to know basic algebra to follow the math. From VM Tue Feb 9 16:04:35 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3603" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "16:52:30" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3603 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25033 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24974 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:49:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA03945 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:49:57 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36C0CA3E.3CA94EEB@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4f971635.36bfb01a@aol.com> <36C09A1C.499F16FD@jetnet.ab.ca> <36C0DC76.1EBA1C00@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:52:30 -0700 > Afraid not. You can't reach C with a normal engine...it thrusts at the > same amount continuously. Remember the first postulate of relativity? > The laws of physics are the same in EVERY reference frame? This applies > here. Calculations have been done that show that you cannot accelerate > to C by throwing mass out of your vehicle. You can't do it by slinging a > particle or vehicle through a field of some type either. The best you > can hope for is a way to "bend" spacetime around the vicinity of your > object, and you might be able to exceed C. To do much even using the > Levi-Civita solutions of General Relativity, you will need a magnetic > field strength of ~10^18 Tesla. To do the exotic warping, where you need > tension higher than actual density, you will need a much higher regime. > Or, you can do what I do: try to figure out how to cheat. If you can > cheat a bit, you might find a way to do it without all that power. I > have personally tested one such device, and have measured a _possible_ > weight change of .5%. This is not yet confirmed, so don't get your hopes > up. It is possibly a magnetic effect. > I know that but that is the design of the space craft is based on speeds close to light speed so time slows down. I am just saying that .7 C is the best I think that can be reached rather than .999C. In real life 1/20C may be the fastest. I would love a time warp field rather than a space warp field. > Autodynamics-don't trust it. Carezani conveniently ignores many known > facts, especially his energy calculations for accelerating particles. > The relativistic predictions have been confirmed EXPERIMENTALLY in the > lab, not just on paper. Do get a couple of books: 1. "Space-time > Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor., 2. "Black holes and Time Warps: > Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip Thorne. These are excellent books > on the subjects. But I ask you to NOT do the following: 1. Do not close > your mind to the possibility that either SR or GR may one day be > falsified; or any other theory for that matter. 2. Do not believe > unwarranted assumptions; such as: "Nothing can travel faster than light > in a vacuum." (see my notes below) 3. Don't disregard an experimental > result on the grounds that it disagrees with conventionally accepted > theory. 4. If you do an experiment, and get a strange result, ask > yourself: "How am I fooling myself? What might I have overlooked that > could account for my anomalous result?" Right now I trust Autodynamics more than SR, but since the test to prove if autodynamics is valid has not been done right now it is just theory. > Faster than light?: It happens. It's true, everywhere you look, there is > a superluminal process taking place. It is called the "EPR effect," but > don't get your hopes up; it cannot be used to transfer meaningful > information. Can there be faster than light transfer of information? > Probably. I have personally done an experiment where I had this as a > result. On wednesday, if all goes well, I will do this again with a > double modulated signal. The modulation I used? FM. The setup is > proprietary. So, I give this to you as simply an interesting tidbit. > Don't go running around and tell everyone that it has been done, because > I could be wrong. And for all you know, I could just be some idiot > thinking this up for idle pleasure. What my point is: don't give up on > it. There are serious attempts to do it. Well, that about does it for > now. Ok, but remeber more people that can duplicate a experiment the better. > Best regards, > Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Feb 9 16:11:24 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2458" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "15:53:12" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2458 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28024 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:14 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA28015 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante38.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante38.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.198]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA22708 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:13 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante38.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id PAA37998 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <36C0DC76.1EBA1C00@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: Autodynamics, relativity, etc. Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:53:12 -0800 (PST) I've seen that site. The fact that they complain about all the criticism they've recieved makes them very hard to take seriously. Thanks for the book recommendations. As to your next comment about relativity being falsified, we already know both theories are "wrong" because they are classical descriptions of a decidedly quantum world. GR will eventually (hopefully) be seen as the classical solution to some kind of guage field theory. Also, what is the "EPR" effect? Best Regards, Nels Lindberg > Autodynamics-don't trust it. Carezani conveniently ignores many known > facts, especially his energy calculations for accelerating particles. > The relativistic predictions have been confirmed EXPERIMENTALLY in the > lab, not just on paper. Do get a couple of books: 1. "Space-time > Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor., 2. "Black holes and Time Warps: > Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip Thorne. These are excellent books > on the subjects. But I ask you to NOT do the following: 1. Do not close > your mind to the possibility that either SR or GR may one day be > falsified; or any other theory for that matter. 2. Do not believe > unwarranted assumptions; such as: "Nothing can travel faster than light > in a vacuum." (see my notes below) 3. Don't disregard an experimental > result on the grounds that it disagrees with conventionally accepted > theory. 4. If you do an experiment, and get a strange result, ask > yourself: "How am I fooling myself? What might I have overlooked that > could account for my anomalous result?" > > Faster than light?: It happens. It's true, everywhere you look, there is > a superluminal process taking place. It is called the "EPR effect," but > don't get your hopes up; it cannot be used to transfer meaningful > information. Can there be faster than light transfer of information? > Probably. I have personally done an experiment where I had this as a > result. On wednesday, if all goes well, I will do this again with a > double modulated signal. The modulation I used? FM. The setup is > proprietary. So, I give this to you as simply an interesting tidbit. > Don't go running around and tell everyone that it has been done, because > I could be wrong. And for all you know, I could just be some idiot > thinking this up for idle pleasure. What my point is: don't give up on > it. There are serious attempts to do it. Well, that about does it for > now. > > Best regards, > Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Wed Feb 10 10:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["849" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "16:07:19" "-0800" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 849 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09605 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:03:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from send1e.yahoomail.com (send1e.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.64]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA09599 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:03:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19990210000719.1807.rocketmail@send1e.yahoomail.com> Received: from [142.194.231.122] by send1e; Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:07:19 PST 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 Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:07:19 -0800 (PST) "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" wrote: > Note even with a perfect engine as time slows down when you > reach the speed of light, the output of the engine will drop > off too since it slows down. First of, how can you be sure that time slows down with speed??? Have you seen it? Or is it only because this way, it's easier to do??? Second, admitting that time _does_ slow down with speed(well, i have to: how will everyone react if i don't share their religion of relativistic science??). Can someone explain to me why it does that, grosso modo? Because you can find many articles that explain how it's supposed to do, but none that explain the why! == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Wed Feb 10 10:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1260" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "20:54:01" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Autodynamics, relativity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1260 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA07597 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:57:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA07533 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-42.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.42]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA14257 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:57:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C110E9.6649C529@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Autodynamics, relativity, etc. Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:54:01 -0800 N. Lindberg wrote: > As to your next comment about relativity > being falsified, we already know both theories are "wrong" because they > are classical descriptions of a decidedly quantum world. GR will > eventually (hopefully) be seen as the classical solution to some kind of > guage field theory. Yes, the search for quantum gravity. So far, it hasn't gone well. The thing is, it would definitely be simpler if a background rest frame of absolute time were reintroduced. But how do you measure it?! It would also explain FTL effects, but they would likely have to be Lorentz variant instead of invariant to travel WRT this "frame." If they do, then by sending an object in one direction faster than light, you *might* be able to determine how fas we move WRT the hypothetical rest frame. But who knows. If I had something that could go FTL, I would try it out ;) > Also, what is the "EPR" effect? EPR = Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen effect. It is somewhat difficult to explain, and would take up too much bandwidth here. If anyone besides Nels is interested in knowing what it is, email me, and I will explain it. You can't transfer meaningful information with it though...be aware of that. Nels, I'll send you an email tommorow. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Wed Feb 10 10:48:11 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8788" "Wednesday" "10" "February" "1999" "08:31:01" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "213" "starship-design: Someone asked about a Mars base on Earth...." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8788 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08502 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA08497 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 06:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p198.gnt.com [204.49.89.198]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA09441 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:35:29 -0600 Message-ID: <000201be5501$fb999ff0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Someone asked about a Mars base on Earth.... Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:31:01 -0600 FLORIDA TODAY Space Online "Planet Earth's best source for online space news" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Feb. 10, 1999 Laying the groundwork: Space buffs push idea for Mars-like base on Earth First of a two-part series on NASA's plans to explore Mars By Robyn Suriano FLORIDA TODAY MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - A giant space rock, maybe as big as a 30-story building, fell from the sky more than 20 million years ago and created a place that reminds Pascal Lee of Mars. The asteroid or comet, no one is sure which, punched a 15-mile wide hole called Haughton Crater in the Canadian Arctic. Still scarred by the ancient impact, today the land is dry and barren. It is covered with rocks and deep valleys. The winds are fierce, and the temperature is almost always below freezing. It's hardly a vacation spot - unless you're interested in going to the Red Planet. "The similarity is astonishing," said Lee, a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center near Mountain View, Calif. "We were struck at once by the amazing resemblance to Mars." That similarity is prompting NASA and a private space advocacy group called the Mars Society to consider the site as a training ground for astronauts and researchers who might someday go to Mars. Perhaps as early as next year, supporters want to begin building a $1.5 million Martian-like base that would be set up in the crater. The effort is led by an engineer and Mars Society space buff named Robert Zubrin of Colorado, who has written a book called The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. "We are going to make this happen," said Zubrin. "Before you can get to Mars, you really need to try these things out on the ground and this would be the place to do it." NASA currently has no plan to send humans to the Martian surface. Instead, it is spending its political capital and money - at least $50 billion - to build and operate the International Space Station during the next 15 years. Mars exploration, however, is going on in a big way. The agency recently launched two more robot probes to the planet to study the weather and hunt for water, which could be used to support a human expedition sometime after 2020. Scientists at places such as Ames also are busy sketching out ideas on how to make the journey work. The process would start with launching supplies, equipment and a return spaceship with robots to begin assembling a Martian base. The missions would begin two years before humans would be sent to Mars inside a multi-storied spaceship. The trip would take one year. Once there, their ship would form the backbone of the base, which would include small garages for vehicles, greenhouses for growing vegetables, and a small nuclear power facility to generate electricy. The crews could live on the surface for six months to a year, collecting rocks, studying the Martian atmosphere and searching for signs of past or even present microbial life. The challenges to pulling off such a mission are enormous, and there would be no room for error. With people living a year away from home, they couldn't just hop in their ship and fly back to Earth if things started to go bad. That's where the arctic base comes in - it could be invaluable in trouble-shooting all kinds of problems a crew would face. As Zubin put it, "You'd much rather find out what kinds of problems you might have in the arctic then wait and discover things on Mars." Already under design, the Haughton Crater base would be a three-story structure with a domed roof. Standing 30 feet tall and 27 feet wide, the building could hold six people. After it was built, it would be flown by plane and helicopter to the site. It would rest on its six legs, much like a spaceship would land on Mars. Each floor of the structure would have a specific purpose, Lee said. The bottom would serve as a basement, where astronauts would enter and exit, store dusty spacesuits and keep tools for cutting rocks or repairing equipment. This would be the dirtiest part of the building, the place where residents would try to confine the grime that inevitably will be tracked indoors from Mars. Stairs would take crew members to a pristine second floor that would hold a laboratory, kitchen and small dining area. The top floor would serve as the crew's quarters. It could hold six sleeping cubicles, which Lee calls "staterooms" because each would have its own window. The top floor would also boast a living room for reading and socializing. At its base, the structure would be connected via enclosed walkways to garages where robot explorers and vehicles could be kept. Two large solar panels would be unfurled on the ground, serving as a back-up if the electrical generators failed. The arctic base would run on battery power from the generators, but a real Martian base would draw its energy from a small amount of nuclear fuel. Experts say solar power is not practical for a Mars base because it would require the crew to haul too much gear to construct a workable system. Mars also receives less light than Earth because it is further from the sun, and huge dust storms often cloud the atmosphere and block sunlight. If the plan works, the aim would be to use the Haughton Crater to replicate as closely as possible an actual Mars outpost. That means astronauts would live and work there for months at a time. Systems to recycle water and generators to supply oxygen also could be put through their paces. What's more, Lee said, astronauts could learn the thousands of little things that need to be worked out before humans ever could be sent to Mars. "When you're working in that kind of environment, you have to do a lot of things that you would also have to do on Mars," Lee said. "Going out in pairs, never alone; limiting the amount of rocks you could collect; staying outside for short lengths of time. These things may sound simple, but they have to be looked at." NASA officials agree they could uncover valuable information that might make a Mars mission successful. "Much like the way football players practice playing football and pilots practice flying planes, astronauts are going to have to practice for living on Mars so when they have to do it for real, they will be prepared as best they can," said Stephen Hoffman, an engineer at the Johnson Space Center in Houston and co-author of a NASA study on the human exploration of Mars. "We'll want to do the best we can with what we have on Earth." Zubrin thinks the arctic site fills that need, which is why he's confident that contributors will open their wallets. The society already has collected $130,000 toward the project, and Zubrin said a major fund-raising campaign will begin soon with corporate sponsors as the targets. "This is within our means," Zubrin said. "We already have a team working on the design and logistics, and I'm confident this $1 million cost is not beyond our capabilities to raise." NASA officials say they haven't learned enough about the project to devote funding to it, but remain interested, said Doug Cooke, manager of the agency's exploration office at the Johnson Space Center. "It's certainly the kind of thing we'll need to do," said Cooke, whose office is in charge of planning human trips to Mars. "But there is a range of testing that will need to be done. Some of it can be done in laboratories, some of it can be done on (the International Space Station), and we're also looking at the moon as a place to test (equipment.) "But, of course, we'll want to do as much as we can on Earth, so this kind of thing would be possible." Beyond practice for a human mission to the Red Planet, Zubrin sees another use for the arctic base - inspiration. Once people see an actual Mars-base structure with astronauts living aboard, Zubrin thinks it could spur greater public interest - and therefore tax-payer support - for a trip to Mars. Lee agrees. "For the first time, we get the sense of gearing up," said Lee, who also is a member of the Mars Society. "We've talked about human missions to Mars forever, but here you are...building things in a purposeful way to study how to get there. "An experiment like this can stimulate a lot of public support to make it happen." Tomorrow: Terraforming on Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ================,,,========================= ===============(o o)======================== ===========oOO==(_)==OOo==================== lparker@cacaphony.net ===========ooooO==Ooooo===================== ===========( )==( )===================== ============\ (====) /====================== =============\_)==(_/======================= From VM Wed Feb 10 10:48:12 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1074" "Wednesday" "10" "February" "1999" "17:57:04" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: Someone asked about a Mars base on Earth...." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1074 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17861 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17851 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA21325; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:57:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199902101657.RAA21325@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: Someone asked about a Mars base on Earth.... Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:57:04 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Clayton Parker" > To: "Starship-Design" > > FLORIDA TODAY Space Online > "Planet Earth's best source for online space news" > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Feb. 10, 1999 > Laying the groundwork: Space buffs push idea for Mars-like base on Earth > First of a two-part series on NASA's plans to explore Mars > By Robyn Suriano > [...] > Zubrin thinks the arctic site fills that need, which is why he's confident > that contributors will open their wallets. > The society already has collected $130,000 toward the project, and Zubrin > said a major fund-raising campaign will begin soon with corporate sponsors > as the targets. > "This is within our means," Zubrin said. "We already have a team working on > the design and logistics, and I'm confident this $1 million cost is not > beyond our capabilities to raise." > [...] More details - see at the Mars Society site: http://www.marssociety.org/ -- Zenon Kulpa, The Mars Society Founding Member No. 0873 From VM Wed Feb 10 11:09:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["52949" "Tuesday" "9" "February" "1999" "23:02:54" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "1165" "starship-design: Repost - Alpha Centauri in 6 years...." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 52949 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03202 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03180 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA12577 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p227.gnt.com [204.49.89.227]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA07936 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:07:16 -0600 Message-ID: <000001be54b2$9e056c60$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Repost - Alpha Centauri in 6 years.... Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:02:54 -0600 Things have been slow lately, so....Sorry for its length but there is a great deal of basic stuff here. INTERSTELLAR Hydrogen Ice Spacecraft for Robotic Interstellar Flight by Jonathan Vos Post, F.B.I.S. 1 ABSTRACT Spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen (or deuterium and tritium) ice can use the same material for structure, shielding, coolant, and fuel. This type of "autophage" (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight fraction, which is a critical parameter for optimizing the performance of interstellar spacecraft. To reduce the volatility of hydrogen ice, a particular self-refrigerating structure is presented. Hydrogen ice by itself is imperfect as a structural element; various methods of stiffening by the admixture of carbon or boron fibers are discussed. Other cryogens relevant to specific fusion reactions are considered, including deuterium, tritium, boron-11, and saturated solutions of lithium in anhydrous ammonia. A quantitative analysis is presented of the relativistic kinematics of multi-staged interstellar iceships. In the limiting case of a 5-stage deuterium ice fusion spacecraft on a one-way mission with no deceleration at the destination, a dead-weight fraction of 10-1 for each stage, and a total payload fraction of 10-5, then the final burnout velocity of the 5th stage is 0.64c, which at constant 0.0485 g acceleration would reach Alpha Centauri in 12.81 years, and at 1-g acceleration would get a probe zipping through the Alpha Centauri system in 6.7 years. Appears in: the Proceedings of ÒPractical Robotic Interstellar Flight: Are We Ready?Ó, New York University, New York City, 29 Aug-1 Sep 1994, and in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, April 1996 ____________________________________________________ 1 C.E.O., Computer Futures Inc.; Active Member: British Interplanetary Society, National Space Society, World Space Foundation, Space Studies Institute, Planetary Society TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page, Abstract, Table of Contents 1 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Design of Hydrogen Ice Spacecraft 3 2.1 Thermal Analysis: Here Comes the Sun 6 2.2 Lithium or Boron in Hydrogen: Icy Isotopes 7 3.0 Relativistic Kinematics 10 3.1 Five-Stage Scenario:MultipleInstrumentPackages/Arrivals 13 4.0 Future Research 15 5.0 Summary & Conclusions 16 6.0 References 17 ____________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION For innovative space exploration missions, unusual requirements are levied on the structural components of the spacecraft. In many cases, the preferred solution is the utilization of unusual materials. Spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen (or deuterium or tritium) ice can use the same material for structure, shielding, coolant, and fuel.2,3,4,5,6,7 This type of "autophage" (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight fraction (fraction of non-payload mass remaining after all fuel is expended), which is a critical parameter for optimizing the performance of interstellar spacecraft.9 At the same time, hydrogen is ideal in having a minimum molecular weight of exhaust material. This dead-weight consideration is even more important for multi-staged rockets. To reduce the volatility of hydrogen ice, at a temperature of 5o Kelvin, we have to keep it cool while the vehicle is being assembled and fueled near planet Earth, and to keep it cool during the flight despite heating from exhaust radiation, interstellar dust impact, and stellar ultraviolet radiation. A particular self-refrigerating structure is presented below. Hydrogen ice by itself is imperfect as a structural element; various methods of stiffening by the admixture of carbon or boron fibers are discussed. Other cryogens are considered, including a saturated solution of lithium in anhydrous deuterated ammonia. For uranium fission rockets12,16, the fraction of mass converted into energy is roughly 7 x 10-4; for deuterium fusion, it is roughly 4 x 10-3. Assume that we have a deuterium fusion engine with conversion fraction (epsilon) = 4 x 10-3; the details are left to the engineers. Assume that the spacecraft structural material is the fuel, namely frozen deuterium. Assume a one-way unmanned probe with no powered deceleration at the destination (a one-way probe with deceleration at the destination would require squaring the mass ratio). Assume as in the classical case per Subotowicz 19 that each stage has the same mass ratio and exhaust velocity. Then, as we shall see in the section on relativistic kinematics, appreciable burnout velocities can be achieved if we can keep the dead-weight fraction as low as 10-1 for each stage, i.e. only one-tenth of non-payload mass remains after all fuel (former structural element) is expended. For example: in the limiting case of a 5-stage deuterium ice fusion spacecraft, if the payload fraction is 10-5, then the final burnout velocity of the 5th stage is 0.64c, which at constant 0.0485 G acceleration would reach Alpha Centauri in 12.81 years, and at 1 G acceleration would get a probe zipping through the Alpha Centauri system in roughly 6.7 years. A quantitative analysis is presented of the relativistic kinematics of multi-staged interstellar iceships. A particular five-stage multiple instrument packages/multiple arrivals scenario is calculated. Future research considerations are outlined. Summary and conclusions are presented. 43 references are listed. 2.0 DESIGN OF HYDROGEN ICE SPACECRAFT James B. Stephens of JPL first proposed (in 1984 and 1985, while in communication with this author) banking hydrogen fuel in Low Earth Orbit without a tank, based on his 20 years of studying icy comet nuclei. He began to add ancillary benefits, as detailed below, including using hydrogen ice in orbit to cool "old fashioned" (low temperature) superconducting electronic systems for low-noise, low-power long-range sensors. Jim Stephens presented his idea to NASA and the Department of Defense in the early 1980s, but received little interest. This author then advanced the concept of interplanetary and interstellar spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen ice that can use the same material for structure, shielding, coolant, and fuel.2,3,4,5,6,7 The ideal spacecraft can be lightweight, inexpensive, and fuel efficient by using balls of hydrogen ice as both structure and fuel. Hydrogen may be "exotic" in its structural function, because it has the tensile strength of butter, but it accounts for over 75% of all matter in the universe and costs under $10 per pound. The material can be stiffened with the admixture of carbon or boron fibers, or various particulates. Balls of modified hydrogen ice first serve as structure, then are detached, liquefied or turned into slush, and channeled into a fusion reactor as fuel. In this way, almost all non-essential parts of the spacecraft are consumed during the mission. This author considers the scenario conceptually similar to the scene in the Marx Brothers' film Go West where Groucho, Harpo, and Chico feed the furnace of a steam locomotive with boxcar slats, then furniture, and then demolish and burn the caboose. There is a similar scene in Around the World in 80 Days,8 where Phogg burned parts of the steamship Henrietta for fuel to complete the last stage of his journey. This type of "autophage" (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight fraction, which is a critical parameter for optimizing the performance of interstellar spacecraft.9 More recently, but more conservatively, Aston10 proposed that thrusters use spent nuclear fuel as propellant. Nordley11 extends Aston's notion to say that "The current generation of ion thrusters uses as heavy a propellant atom as possible to maximize the mass-to-charge ratio in the ion generation part of the thruster, and thus minimize its size and weight. This is less of a concern in a very high exhaust velocity interstellar application because the engines require less mass flow per unit power. Indeed, use of a lower mass propellant atom would reduce the voltage requirements of accelerator stages for a given exhaust velocity.... [Aston's] philosophy could be extended to parts of the spacecraft structure as well. Singly charged aluminum or silicon atoms would achieve [in an ion electric propulsion system] about 4.7 time the velocity of a singly charged xenon atom and about 8.7 times the velocity of singly charged uranium atoms in the same [electric] field." The hydrogen ice autophage concept takes Aston's and Nordley's approach to a logical extreme. To reduce the volatility of hydrogen ice, a particular self-refrigerating structure was invented by James Stephens, analyzed quantitatively by James Salvail at the University of Hawaii, illustrated in Figure 1, and described below. _________________________________ [get from mac disk, or scan in picture here] Figure 1: Self-refrigerated Ice Sphere __________________________________________________________________ Concentric spheres of very thin metal (i.e. lithium) or metallized mylar coating thicker concentric spherical shells of hydrogen ice are connected to each other by at least two rods made of a material that has very low thermal conductivity. This is necessary so that the spheres above the instantaneous level of the subliming ice surface do not move relative to each other. The outer shells are highly reflective, thick enough to provide reasonable structural integrity. The inner spheres are made of the same materials, but much thinner (is much less than 0.1 cm), as they are merely radiation shields. The radiation shields and outer hulls must contain enough sufficiently sized holes or pores so that sublimed hydrogen molecules are quickly lost into space. The evacuated spaces between the slowly receding ice surface and the outer hulls thus have negligible gaseous heat conduction because the gas is very rarified. Gas flux is small enough that heat convection is also negligible. Under these conditions, the escaping sublimed hydrogen expands and refrigerates the remaining concentric spheres, maintaining a temperature well below the 20o K melting point of hydrogen; the nominal system temperature is 5o K. The system as a whole as conceived by James B, Stephens includes: (1) ice embedded insulation, (2) vapor cooled insulation, (3) isomer conversion catalyst integral with insulation, (4) Infrared photon reflective and vapor conductive insulation, (5) vapor cast crystalline hydrogen ice using nuclear magnetic resonance heating of non-crystalline ice, (6) self-forming filamentary insulation from dispersed particles in the ice that cohere due to ice cleaning. The attributes of the system include: (1) unitized design -- hydrogen ice is the cryogen, propellant, shielding, absorber, power source, window, and insulation support during launch; (2) superconducting temperature cryostat (less than 5o K for hydrogen); (3) self-insulating solid cryogen; (4) long lifetime in Earth orbit; (5) low cost material (less than $10/pound); (6) low cost fabrication (casting process); (7) low launch cost (withstand high acceleration forces); (8) low cost operation (efficient superconducting solid state system); (9) acoustically quiet (no moving parts); (10) thermally stable (large thermal capacity well insulated); (11) high density ice vapor cast and used at same temperature avoiding shrink stresses in insulation and components embedded in ice. Stephens also emphasized neutron absorbing properties of hydrogen ice, microwave reflection or absorption, laser-tough shielding, neutral and charged particle beam tough shielding, radar stealth, and a wide range of capabilities for embedded avionics, including: phased-array radar, solar-powered ion rocket and superconducting magnet power generator/storage, and superconducting guidance and control. As the concept was extended by this author (see Figure 2), individual hydrogen ice spheres can be orbited by small boosters, and later assembled into a large spacecraft. Solid hydrogen is inherently safer than liquid hydrogen. The spheres can have embedded avionics, providing distributed redundant capability for the spacecraft at superconducting temperatures. Once assembled, the low accelerations typical of ion, fission, or fusion propulsion would not endanger the inherently low compressive and tensile strength of hydrogen ice as a structural material. An acceleration of 0.0485 gravities is used in Section 3.1. The hydrogen ice spheres would be between the payload (or crew) and the nuclear propulsion, providing neutron-absorbent shielding at no extra cost. _________________________________ Figure 2: On-Orbit Iceship Assembly [get from mac disk, or scan in picture here] _______________ __________________________________________________________________ Earlier articles by this author suggested space exploration missions including: (1) sungrazer, (2) outer planet explorer, (3) interstellar precursor 1000 AU mission (TAU), (4) subterranean radar mapping of planets, (5) manned Mars mission, (6) propellant transfer and storage for Space Station refueling depot. This author then proposed experiments of detonation wave propulsion/attitude control with alternating layers of hydrogen ice and oxygen ice, and made detailed suggestions for utilization of cryogen ices on the Moon, Mercury, and Mars.25,26,27 2.1 Thermal Analysis: Here Comes the Sun James Salvail's thermal analysis2,3,4 by computer simulation of the system of differential equations showed that at 1 AU from the sun, a 50-layer hydrogen ice sphere of 1 meter radius remained nearly isothermal at the initial temperature of 5o K, with a negligible temperature gradient and a near-constant mass flux of 17.8 nanograms/cm2-sec. After a simulated 10 years, the hydrogen ice component had shrunk to 21 inches in radius, and the total lifetime was 12 years. Reducing the the radiation shields from 50 to 10 had no effect. Painting the outer surface black (for stealth) gave a tripled mass flux of 53.8 nanograms/cm2-sec, a surface temperature of 5.2o K, and a reduced lifetime of 4.2 years. Obviously, for our spacecraft, reflectivity and long lifetime are preferred to stealth (which the DOD might prefer). Even at 0.1 AU from the sun, far inside the orbit of Mercury, a 50-shield 1 meter shiny sphere stays at 5.81o K, with a mass flux of 1.06 micrograms/cm2-sec, and a lifetime of 75 days. At 0.1 AU from the sun, a 10-shield 1 meter shiny sphere stays at 6.39o K, with a mass flux of 10.5 micrograms/cm2-sec, and a lifetime of 35 days. The radiation shield effects are important for larger thermal loads, such as would occur if the hydrogen ice spacecraft mission began with a gravity assist swingby close to the sun. The effects of a fission or fusion explosion near the spacecraft, as might happen with temporary malfunction of a nuclear rocket engine, or of catastrophic failure of one of several co-travelling redundant spacecraft, was simulated as a temporary change from heliocentric distance of 1.0 AU to 0.01 AU, where the radiative equilibrium temperature for a black body is 2808o K, for 20 seconds. If the outer coat does not melt at the maximum temperature attained (2361o K), then the hydrogen ice adjacent to the outer surface peaks at 8.73o K, with a gas flux of 4.7 milligrams/cm2-sec, decreasing after 10 minutes to 5.85o K (50-shield) or 5.79o K (10-shield), at which time the ice had receded 2.5 cm. All things being equal, the lifetime of a self-refrigerated hydrogen ice sphere was found to be directly proportional to the first power of its initial radius. Thus, a 2 meter radius sphere has a 24 year lifetime at 1 AU, and 2 years at 0.1 AU. For deep space missions, loss becomes extremely small for spheres several meters in radius.24 Similar thermal analysis has been performed for slab and cylindrical geometries.24 Hydrogen ice by itself is imperfect as a structural element; various methods of stiffening by the admixture of carbon or boron fibers have been explored, as well as admixtures of particulates such as montmorillonite clay. A survey of cryogenic ices and slushes has been presented in an earlier article by this author.4 For this paper it suffices to note that hydrogen ice has a density of 70.6 g/l at -262o C, melts at 20o K to become a liquid with density 70.8 g/l at -253o C, and that slush is intermediate in density but has various advantages over both solid and liquid. For proposed antimatter propulsion29,30 it is suggested that there be a significant excess of hydrogen to anti-hydrogen for optimization. In such a case, the spacecraft would be constructed of hydrogen ice as before, but with small very carefully suspended and shielded units of anti-hydrogen, for which the self-refrigeration concept is most definitely not appropriate. Antimatter propulsion requires several breakthroughs. Fission propulsion does not, and requires only ordinary hydrogen as a propellant, heated by whatever fission reactions take place in whatever reactor/engine. Fission power is not emphasized in this paper. Fusion propulsion does require breakthroughs.31 Assuming the existence of adequate space-rated fusion reactors, we must turn our attention from ordinary hydrogen ice to more unusual materials. 2.2 Lithium or Boron in Hydrogen: Icy Isotopes In one sense, ordinary hydrogen (protium) is the ideal structure/fuel, as it is extremely cheap and has the lightest molecular weight of any material exhaust. But the fusion reaction attainable 20 with ordinary hydrogen fuses two protons to produce a deuteron (deuterium nucleus), a positron (anti-electron), and a neutrino, at an energy of 0.42 Mev (million electron volts). This yields 2.0 x 1013 Joules per kilogram of fuel. p + p -> D + e+ + v But this is irrelevant, since the reaction involved is not true nuclear fusion. As revealed by the emission of the neutrino, this is a "weak force" reaction, rather than a "strong force" reaction. Too much of the energy is carried away by the neutrino. The reaction is too difficult to initiate. The total energy yield is (relatively) low. And for little more effort, with more sophisticated fuel, we can get better results. If our hydrogen ice is made of equal proportions of protium and deuterium, we can fuse the two to produce Helium-3 and a gamma ray, with 5.49 Mev energy, corresponding to 1.75 x 1014 Joules per kilogram of fuel. p + D -> He3 + gamma But this is not a good idea either. The gamma rays would be emitted in all directions, and tend to fry the payload. We might as well eliminate protium completely, and use either pure deuterium ice or a deuterium/tritium mixture. Pure deuterium ice would result in two different reactions, yielding a combination of Helium-3, tritium, protons, and neutrons. D + D -> He3 + n 3.27 Mev (7.8 x 1013 J/kg) D + D -> H3 + p 4.03 Mev (9.65 x 1013 J/kg) Deuterium is easily obtainable in massive quantities, since it makes up roughly 1 part in 6,000 of the hydrogen in water here on Earth.23 Deuterium oxide, D2O, heavy water, costs from $0.06 to $1/gram depending upon quantity and purity.23 The deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction is moderately easy to initiate, requiring a temperature in the 10 million degree range. But the neutrons in the output are nasty. Since they are uncharged, they tend to fly in all directions, uncontrollable by electric or magnetic fields, frying and/or rendering the payload radioactive. Nonetheless, this is the reaction and fuel used by default throughout the remainder of this paper. An energetic deuterium-tritium reaction seems at first to have certain advantages. This is the most studied reaction today, because of the low ignition temperature of roughly 10 million degrees. D + H3 -> He4 + n 17.6 Mev (3.37 x 1014 J/kg) This is actually the easiest fusion reaction to ignite, and may thus be the first used for terrestrial fusion power. But tritium is quite radioactive, decaying in about a decade, and that neutron is still trouble. There are several interesting reactions involving Helium-3 in the fuel, but we disregard them here for two reasons. First, it's hard to obtain, although it might be extracted from the upper centimeter of lunar regolith where it has accumulated from solar wind. Second, the self-cooling approach described in my articles for hydrogen doesn't work as well for helium isotopes, which have to be cooled to below the background temperature of the universe. Frozen helium is just too volatile. This leaves us with several more exotic reactions. We consider Lithium. Lithium occurs in nature21 with an abundance ratio of 7.39% for the isotope Lithium-6 (Li6) to 92.61% for Lithium-7 (Li7). Lithium melts at 180o C, and boils at 1,326o C. If we built the spacecraft out of equal proportions of protium and pure Lithium-6 isotope, we have: p + Li6 -> He4 + He3 3.90 Mev (5.53 x 1013 J/kg) We would be using hydrogen ice with lithium foil in the self-refrigerating concentric structure, plus walls and girders of lithium. Lithium is a soft metal, but at cryogenic temperatures (and away from water) it is strong enough without brittleness to suffice for structural purposes. Unfortunately, this is a difficult reaction to ignite. We get somewhat more bang for the buck if we use isotopically pure Lithium-7, for a reaction yielding an electromagnetically focusable stream of alpha particles. p + Li7 -> He4 + He4 17.00 Mev (2.0 x 1014 J/kg) Again, this is a hard reaction to ignite. We can use deuterium ice and pure Lithium-6, again getting an all-alpha output: D + Li6 -> He4 + He4 22.30 Mev (2.67 x 1014 J/kg) Or even consider protium plus Boron-11 for the so-called Boron-fission reaction: p + B11 -> He4 + He4 + He4 8.80 Mev (7.0 x 1013 J/kg) But this is even less studied, and also extremely difficult to ignite, requiring perhaps 1,000 times the ignition temperature of Deuterium. Lithium or Boron fusion might be initiated by incoming protons from interstellar space when rammed into at over 0.02 c, which might be useful for upper stages of a staged interstellar spacecraft.28 If we use fibers of Boron-11 to stiffen deuterium or tritium ice, it might be okay to let those boron fibers go right into the rocket engine, vaporize, and partly engage in nuclear reactions. The unreacted boron would reduce the energy yield somewhat, and merely be expelled as part of the reaction mass. There is a clever way to get the lithium mixed in with the hydrogen. Lithium is very soluble in anhydrous ammonia (NH3 with no water). The resulting solution is the lowest density liquid known at room temperature, with a density of only 0.511 g/l.22 Regular ammonia, NH3, has a molecular weight of 17.03, a density of 0.7710 g/l, and melts at -77.7o C, while Trideutero ammonia, ammonia-d3, ND3, has a molecular weight of 20.05 and melts at -74o C.23 Lithium solutions in ammonia have metallic conductivities above 9 Mole percent metal. There is a eutectic at 22 Mole percent metal at 88o K., and at lower temperature is a stable solid compound, perhaps Li(NH3)4. We can mix up batches of Lithium-6 or Lithium-7 in ordinary anhydrous ammonia, or Lithium-6 in fully deuterated anhydrous ammonia, freeze the stuff in the concentric perforated lithium-foil configuration, and build our spaceship out of that lithiated ammonia ice. This does leave us with a certain amount of useless nitrogen, which would contaminate the fusion reaction, unless separated out and expelled as unreacted exhaust mass. But lithiated anhydrous ammonia might be worth investigating as an exotic chemical fuel for liquid oxygen combustion. Where does this leave us? We don't have a clear idea of a spacecraft fusion reactor that burns lithium or boron.31 So we may have to bite the bullet on the neutron radiation problem and build our spacecraft out of deuterium or mixed deuterium-tritium ice. The rest of this paper makes that assumption. Nordley32 points out "that as soon as the main reaction happens, the products become available for side reactions. While the output of particles from these side reactions may be several orders of magnitude below the output of the main reaction, and thus not worthy of interest regarding the kinematics, they will still be very significant (especially the neutrons) to electronics and biological components at the power levels needed for interstellar flight." We note that Lithium can trap neutrons, heating up, and transferring that heat to melt or slushify hydrogen ice. Future considerations include analysis of the limits of neutron-hardened payloads through redundancy, self-repair, or even nanotechnology.33 3.0 RELATIVISTIC KINEMATICS Spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen ice can use the same material for structure, shielding, coolant, and fuel,2,3,4,5,6,7 but more importantly, from the kinematic viewpoint, that means that very little of the spacecraft's mass is wasted as non-productive non-payload. This type of "autophage" (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight fraction (fraction of non-payload mass remaining after all fuel is expended), which is a critical parameter for optimizing the performance of interstellar spacecraft.8 At the same time, hydrogen is ideal in having a a minimum molecular weight of exhaust material, and hence maximum exhaust velocity. As Spencer & Jaffe report,9 "the earliest studies of relativistic rocket mechanics by Ackeret,12,13 Tsien,14 Bussard,15 and others made two implicit assumptions that severely limit performance of the rockets considered. They assumed that nuclear-energy rockets are limited to a single stage and that the available energy corresponds to a fixed fraction of the final vehicle mass. The latter assumption apparently arose from the thought that spent nuclear fuel would be either retained on board or dumped, rather than exhausted at high velocity. These assumptions are neither necessary or desirable. "More recently, interstellar travel has been considered by Sanger16 and Stuhlinger.17 They realized that the limitation regarding the amount of energy available being a function of the propellant mass rather than the final mass was unnecessary; however, they did not consider staging the vehicles as is done with chemical rockets. They concluded, therefore, that interstellar travel using nuclear reactions as an energy source was impossible because of fundamental limitations on the amount of energy available for rocket propulsion. In contradiction, the analysis presented [by Spencer and Jaffe9] shows that nuclear fission or fusion rockets can be considered for interstellar travel." The equations of Spencer and Jaffe have been used for the relativistic kinematic calculations in this paper. These include the correct relationship first given by Sanger 16 and Huth 18 between fraction of mass converted into energy (epsilon) and exhaust velocity relative to vehicle (w), and between fraction of mass converted into energy (epsilon) and specific impulse (I), namely: w/c = [epsilon(2-epsilon)]1/2 I = (c/g)[epsilon(2-epsilon)]1/2 For a one-stage vehicle, the burnout fraction (xi) is the ratio of the rest mass of the vehicle at burnout to the rest mass of fuel consumed: xi = Mb / Mf and the rest mass of fuel consumed is the sum of the rest mass of fuel exhausted (Mex) and the rest mass of fuel converted to kinetic energy Mf = Mex + (epsilon)Mf As Spencer & Jaffe pointed out, the performance of a multi-staged interstellar spacecraft is very sensitive to the dead-weight fraction (beta) and the overall payload fraction (phi). In particular, for an n-stage vehicle, the final burnout velocity of the payload (nth stage) in terms of over-all payload fraction, deadweight fraction, and fraction of mass converted to energy is {Clyde: insert scanned in printout of nicely rendered equation here} [(1 + beta)/(beta + phi1/n)]^{2n[epsilon(2-epsilon)]1/2} - 1 un / c = ------------------------------------------------------- [(1 + beta)/(beta + phi1/n)]^{2n[epsilon(2-epsilon)]1/2} + 1 and the over-all mass ratio is delta = [(1 + beta)/(beta + phi1/n)]n Then, if the payload fraction is 10-1 we have the following relationship between dead-weight fraction (beta), number of stages, and fraction of light velocity of payload: Dead-weight Fraction Number of Stages Fraction of Light Velocity (Beta) (n) (un / c) ____________________ ________________ ____________________ 0.1 1 0.15 0.1 2 0.17 0.1 3 0.177 0.1 4 or 5 0.18 0.2 1 0.125 0.2 2 0.15 0.2 3 0.155 0.2 4 0.16 0.2 5 0.162 0.3 1 0.105 0.3 2 0.13 0.3 3 0.14 0.3 4 0.146 0.3 5 0.148 If the payload fraction is 10-3 we have the following relationship between dead-weight fraction (beta), number of stages, and fraction of light velocity of payload: Dead-weight Fraction Number of Stages Fraction of Light Velocity (Beta) (n) (un / c) ____________________ ________________ ____________________ 0.1 1 0.20 0.1 2 0.37 0.1 3 0.44 0.1 4 0.46 0.1 5 0.47 0.2 1 0.16 0.2 2 0.30 0.2 3 0.37 0.2 4 0.41 0.2 5 0.44 0.3 1 0.14 0.3 2 0.26 0.3 3 0.32 0.3 4 0.36 0.3 5 0.38 If the payload fraction is 10-5 we have the following relationship between dead-weight fraction (beta), number of stages, and fraction of light velocity of payload: Dead-weight Fraction Number of Stages Fraction of Light Velocity (Beta) (n) (un / c) ____________________ ________________ ____________________ 0.1 1 0.22 0.1 2 0.40 0.1 3 0.53 0.1 4 0.61 0.1 5 0.64 0.2 1 0.16 0.2 2 0.30 0.2 3 0.42 0.2 4 0.50 0.2 5 0.55 0.3 1 0.14 0.3 2 0.26 0.3 3 0.36 0.3 4 0.44 0.3 5 0.48 The assumption has been made in this paper that there is no rocket-based deceleration of the payload at its destination. To provide such deceleration, the mass ratio must be squared. To decelerate at the destination, accelerate back to Earth, and decelerate at the return would require raising the mass ratio to the 4th power. But several proposals have been made20 (pp.116-7) for interstellar spacecraft braking by solar sail, magnetic sail,34 or electrical deflection of interstellar plasma. It remains to be seen whether any of these approaches are feasible at velocities above 0.01 c. 3.1 Five-Stage Scenario: Multiple Instrument Packages/Arrivals Hartman35 in reviewing an earlier draft of this paper, considered the time it would take for the limiting-case 5-stage, 10-5 payload fraction, 0.1 dead-weight fraction spacecraft. That earlier (19 August 1994) draft was distributed as a pre-print at Practical Robotic Interstellar Flight: Are We Ready?, 29 Aug-1 Sep 1994, New York University, New York City, and at ConAdian: The 52nd World Science Fiction Convention, 1 Sep-5 Sep 1994, Winnipeg, Manitoba. In it, I had imprecisely claimed that the vehicle in question would reach the Alpha Centauri system in "roughly 6 years." As Hartman comments, "the lowest acceleration that will give you a final velocity of 0.64 c by the end of the trip to Alpha Centauri [assumed to be 4.1 light years] would be approximately 0.0485 gravities. That would require a constant acceleration for the entire journey, and would take roughly 12.81 years [12 years, 294 days]. Any lower acceleration, and you would need more distance (and time) to reach the proposed final velocity. With a full one gravity acceleration the probe would reach 0.64 c in 0.62 years [0.622], while covering just under two-tenths of a light year [0.199]. It would then coast for 3.9 light years [3.901], thus taking about 6.7 years [6.717] for the trip." He correctly observes that with low accelerations, little structural strength is required, hence the plausibility of hydrogen ice. "Will the probe's structure stand up to even 1/20 G? If not, the final velocity will be lower." The various stiffening methods suggested for hydrogen ice may not be valid for 1 G, but are almost surely effective for 0.0485 G = 47.5 cm/sec2. Hartman then elaborates on an aspect of my scenario which had not been spelled out in the earlier draft. As he puts it, "all five of the stages would reach Alpha Centauri in a reasonable length of time. The fifth stage, if you use 0.0485 gravities, would reach its goal in 12.81 years [accelerate full time, 4.1 light years], the fourth in 13.19 years [accelerate 4/5 time, 2.6 light years, and coast 1.5 light years], the third in 14.51 years [accelerate 3/5 time, 1.48 light years, and coast 2.62 light years], the second in 18.60 years [accelerate 2/5 time, 0.65 light years, and coast 3.45 light years], and the first in 33.30 years [accelerate 1/5 time, 0.165 light years, and coast 3.935 light years]. "If higher accelerations are used, these times would be compressed, ranging from 6.72 years to 32 years. If each stage carried its own instrument package, the probe would return much more data, and the additional packages would add little to the massive lower four stages. Since the fifth stage would pass through the target system at nearly two-thirds the speed of light, it could take only a hasty peek at its goal. The following stages could take longer looks, though only the first and perhaps the second stages could benefit from directions influenced by the fifth stage's information." The following numbers, calculated by Hartman, apply to the arrival after the nominal payload of four successive instrument capsules. These figures assume no braking. A consensus reached at Practical Robotic Interstellar Flight: Are We Ready? was that payloads should be equivalent to a Hubble Space Telescope in order to adequately image destination planets and to maintain an optical communication link with Earth. __________________________________________________________________ Stage Arrival Velocity Arrival Time Signal Return 5 0.640 c 12 years + 295 days 16 years + 331 days 4 0.512 c 13 years + 68 days 17 years + 105 days 3 0.384 c 14 years + 185 days 18 years + 222 days 2 0.256 c 18 years + 219 days 22 years + 256 days 1 0.128 c 33 years + 111 days 37 years + 148 days __________________________________________________________________ 4.0 FUTURE RESEARCH This paper is a conceptual study, backed by quantitative analysis. Future research is needed to develop the concept into the systems design phase. The following are some of the important considerations yet to be performed: ¥ Geometry: should the spacecraft be a "cluster of grapes" configuration of spheres, or a more conventional cylindrical configuration, still using the self-refrigerated hydrogen ice concept? ¥ Attach/Detach: how are the spheres attached to each other, and how are they detached to be used as fuel? If robotically,36,37 what is the deadweight fraction of that robotic mechanism, and is it less than the tankage requirements for conventional liquid fuel? Are robots chewed up and vaporized as reaction mass? ¥ Fuel Processing: how is hydrogen ice melted or slushified; how separated from the metal concentric shields, stiffening fibers or particulates, and insulating rods; how pumped or introduced into the reaction chamber? ¥ Centroid: as spheres are plucked and moved, the center-of-mass of the spacecraft shifts. How is attitude corrected to maintain the proper thrust vector? ¥ Payload: should there be (one to five) centralized payloads as such, or does a distributed array of superconducting avionics embedded in multiple spheres suffice for operations at the destination? If so, what science data can be captured and returned?38 ¥ Radiation: How much can payload be hardened against nuclear engine neutrons and cosmic rays by redundancy, self repair, and nanotechnology?33 I suspect that the optimum payload is the size of a heavily shielded bacterium, able to build a useful sensor/communication package from in situ material, but that is outside the scope of this paper. ¥ Stages: how many stages should there be, given the diminishing returns for additional stages in terms of coasting velocity, at great expense in terms of mass ratio? The trade-off should consider the multiple instrument package/arrival time scenario of Section 3.1, above. ¥ Parameters: What are specific parameters of mass and thrust for selected configurations of multi-stage fission and fusion hydrogen ice spacecraft and specific stellar destinations? ¥ Destination: What should be the target star system for such an interstellar probe? I suggested in a separate presentation at Practical Robotic Interstellar Flight: Are We Ready? the value of fixing the date of arrival of probe transmissions at 2045 A.D. (the Centenary of the United Nations) or 2076 A.D. (American Tercentennial), so that a given destination and average velocity fully determines the launch date, allowing scenarios to be more easily compared. ¥ Ignition: can Lithium or Boron fusion be ignited by incoming protons at above 0.02 c?28 ¥ Braking: can the payload be decelerated at the destination by solar sail, magnetic sail,34 or electrical deflection of interstellar plasma? ¥ Hybrid: can this hydrogen ice concept be effectively combined with other technologies, such as laser propulsion,39 solar sails,40,41,42 ion propulsion, mass drivers, anti-matter43, pellet streams (or streams of heavy ions such as, I suggest, buckminsterfullerenes), and the like? ¥ Cost: what does such a spacecraft cost? ¥ Schedule: when are such spacecraft likely to be feasible; what precursor missions are likely (i.e. Solar Gravitational Focal Zone, Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud); how does hydrogen ice spacecraft development fit in with other aspects of space transportation infrastructure?44 Many basic questions remain. The author hopes that the "hydrogen ice spacecraft for robotic interstellar flight" concept itself stimulates interesting answers. 5.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen (or deuterium and tritium) ice can use the same material for structure, shielding, coolant, and fuel.2,3,4,5,6,7 This type of "autophage" (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight fraction (fraction of non-payload mass remaining after all fuel is expended), which is a critical parameter for optimizing the performance of interstellar spacecraft, especially multi-staged spacecraft.9 To reduce the volatility of hydrogen ice, a particular self-refrigerating structure invented by James B. Stephens of JPL and quantified by James Salvail (U. Hawaii) and D. Hustvedt for Earth orbit operations,24 was extended by this author to interplanetary25,26,27 and interstellar applications. With self-refrigeration, hydrogen ice lasts surprisingly long (1 meter radius sphere at 1 AU lasts 12 years). Hydrogen ice by itself (butter-soft) is imperfect as a structural element; various methods of stiffening by the admixture of particulates or carbon or boron fibers are proposed. Ordinary hydrogen ice is an ideal fuel for fission and anti-matter propulsion.29,30 Other cryogens are considered relevant to fusion propulsion,20,31 including deuterium, tritium, Lithium-6, Lithium-7, Boron-11, and a saturated solution of lithium in anhydrous ammonia.21,22 Specific fusion reactions are discussed in terms of fuel, radiation, energy, and ignition. A quantitative analysis is presented of the relativistic kinematics of multi-staged interstellar iceships. The relativistic multi-stage equations of Spencer and Jaffe9 are utilized, and the insights and errors of earlier authors noted.12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 Tables are presented for fusion propulsion scenarios with dead-weight fractions of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3; payload fractions of 10-1, 10-3, and 10-5; and number of stages from 1 to 5; yielding payload velocities of 0.15 to 0.64 c. In the limiting case of a 5-stage deuterium ice fusion spacecraft on a one-way mission with no deceleration at the destination, a dead-weight fraction of 10-1 for each stage, and a total payload fraction of 10-5, then the final burnout velocity of the 5th stage is 0.64c, which at constant 0.0485 G acceleration would reach Alpha Centauri in 12.81 years (with earlier stages arriving with their own instrument packages at later dates), and at 1 G acceleration would get a probe zipping through the Alpha Centauri system in roughly 6.7 years. This paper is a conceptual study, backed by quantitative analysis. Future research is needed to develop the concept into the systems design phase. There are some important considerations yet to be performed, involving: Geometry, Attach/Detach, Robotics,36,37 Fuel Processing, Centroid, Payload, Sensors,38 Radiation, Nanotechnology,33 Stages, Parameters, Destination, Ignition,28 Braking,34 Hybridization (laser propulsion39, solar sails40,41,42, antimatter43), Cost, and Schedule.44 Many basic questions remain. The author hopes that the "hydrogen ice spacecraft for robotic interstellar flight" concept itself stimulates a new set of interesting questions and interesting answers. Return to Computer Futures 6.0 REFERENCES 1 The Author, in this paper, represents only himself and his position as C.E.O., Computer Futures Inc. No endorsement by, or rights to this work are implied for any of the co-sponsoring organizations in which the Author is an Active Member: British Interplanetary Society, National Space Society, World Space Foundation, Space Studies Institute, Planetary Society 2 Post, J.V., "Unusual Spacecraft Materials", Proc. Space 90, 2nd International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space, April 1990, Albuquerque, NM, pp.1055-1064 3 Post, J.V., "Unusual Spacecraft Materials", Proc. Vision-21 (Space Travel in the Next Millennium), NASA Lewis Res. Ctr., April 1990, pp.391-403 [see also my frontispiece poem in this volume] 4 Post, J.V., "Hydrogen Ice Spacecraft", Proc. AIAA Space Prog. & Tech., Huntsville, AL, Sep 1990 5 Spangenburg, R. & Moser, D., "Iceships", in "Notes from the Radical Fringe", ed. T. Reichhardt, Final Frontier, Vol.3, No.3, May/June 1990, p.26, citing 3 above 6 David, Leonard, "Hydrogen Iceships", in "Vision for the 21st Century", Ad Astra, Vol.2, No.6, June 1990, p.27, citing 3 above 7 Ditlea, Steve, "Space: Sail on Ice", Omni, Jan 1991, p.20; quoting J. V. Post and James Stephens (JPL) who originated the idea of hydrogen ice spacecraft for low Earth orbit 8 Verne, Jules, Around the World in 80 Days, in The Omnibus, New York: Blue Ribbon, 1938, orig. Paris 1873 9 Spenser, Dwain F., and Jaffe, Leonard D., Feasibility of Interstellar Travel, Technical Report No.32-233, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 15 March 1962 10 Aston, Graeme, "Electronic Propulsion: A Far Reaching Technology", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 39, No.11, Nov. 1986, pp.503-507 11 Nordley, Gerald David, "Application of Antimatter-Electric Power to Interstellar Propulsion", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 43, 1990, pp.241-258 12 Ackeret, J., "Theory of Rockets", Helvetica Physica Acta, Vol. 19, 1946, pp.103-112 13 Ackeret, J., "Theory of Rockets", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 6, 1947, pp.116-123 14 Tsien, H. S., "Rockets and Other Thermal Jets Using Nuclear Energy", The Science and Engineering of Nuclear Power, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Vol.11, 1949, pp.177-195 15 Bussard, R. W., "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight", Astronautica Acta, Vol. 6, 1960, pp.179-194 16 Sanger, E., "Atomic Rockets for Space Travel", Astronautica Acta, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1960, pp.4-15 17 Stuhlinger, E., "Photon Rocket Propulsion", Astronautics, Vol.4, No. 10, Oct 1959, pp.36, 69, 72, 74, 76, 78 18 Huth, J., "Relativistic Theory of Rocket Flight with Advanced Propulsion Systems", ARS Journal No. 30, 1960, pp.250-253 19 Subotowicz, M., "Theorie der relativistschen n-Stufenrakete", Proc. 10th International Astronautical Congress, Vol. 2, London, 1959, pp. 852-864 20 Mauldin, John H., Prospects for Interstellar Travel, American Astronautical Society/Univelt, 1992 21 Gilman, Henry, and Eisch, John J., "Lithium", Scientific American, Jan 1963, pp.88ff 22 Lepoutre, Gerard, and Lelieur, Jean Pierre, "Properties of Concentrated Metal-Ammonia Solutions", in Metal-Ammonia Solutions, London: Butterworth, 1970 23 CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, 74th Edn., 1993-4, p.4-14 24 D. Hustvedt, personal communication, 17 Jan 1986 25 Post, J. V., "Lunar Farside, Mars Polar Cap, and Mercury Polar Cap Neutrino Experiments", Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space III, Proc. 3rd International Conference (Space-92), AS Div. ASCE, Denver, 31 May-4 June 1992, pp.2252-63 26 Post, J. V., "Human and Robotic Precursor Missions to the Polar Icecaps of Mercury", Space Manufacturing 9: The High Frontier: Proc. Eleventh SSI-Princeton Conference, ed. Barbara Faughnan, Washington DC: AIAA, Sep 1993, pp.370-377 27 Post, J.V., as cited in "The Ball-Bearing Bowling Alternative: Wild Strikes for Polar Ice", Clark, Pamela E., The Mercury Messenger, No.6, July 1994, Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, citing 26 above 28 Bond, Alan, "Analysis of potential performance of a ram-augmented interstellar rocket", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 27 (1974), pp.674-88 29 Forward, Robert L., "Antimatter propulsion", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 35 (1982), pp.391-5 30 Cassenti, B. N., "Optimization of relativistic antimatter rockets", American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1983, #83-1343 31 Post, J. V., "Fusion Rockets", section 2.4 of Catalog of Advanced Propulsion Concepts, Final Report, Volume 1, Advanced Propulsion Concepts for Orbital Transfer Study, Boeing Document D180-26680, Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, WA, October 1981, Boeing/NASA Contract NAS8-33935, pricipal author Dr. Dana G. Andrews [during the preparation of this report, J. V. Post qualitatively invented the Magnetic Sail, later quantified by Andrews & Zubrin as below] 32 Nordley, Gerald David, personal communication, Sunnyvale, CA, 27 September 1994 33 Post, J. V., Molecular Cybernetics, the world's first doctoral dissertation on what is now called Nanotechnology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1977. Various chapters of this thesis have appeared in journals and the proceedings of international conferences, list available upon request. J. V. Post was in contact with Nanotechnology leader K. Eric Drexler before Drexler's first book, and introduced Drexler to supportive editors of Omni and Analog magazine 34 Andrews, Dana, and Zubrin, Robert, "Magnetic Sails and Interstellar Travel", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 43 (1990), pp.265-72 [as per note in 31 above, Dr. Robert Zubrin acknowledges J. V. Post as qualitative inventor of the Magnetic Sail, that J. V. Post disclosed the concept to Dr. Dana Andrews, which concept was quantified when Dr. Andrews collaborated with Dr. Zubrin after J. V. Post had left Boeing employ] 35 Hartman, Norman E., personal communication, Tigard, OR, 11 September 1994 36 Post, J. V., and Dr. Donald David Rose, "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Space", Quantum Science Fiction & Fantasy Review, Gaithersburg, MD, No. 43/44, May 1993, pp.44-48 37 Zeilingold, Daphna; Hoey, John; Post, Jonathan V., Space Exploration Initiative Automation and Robotics Trade Study, Space Systems Division, Rockwell International, Downey, CA, 30 April 1990 [includes 300 references] 38 Post, J. V., "Future Space Sensors", concluding keynote address in "Images from Space: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow", AIAA 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, 6 Jan 1992; appeared in Quantum Science Fiction & Fantasy Review, Gaithersburg, MD, No.41, Winter/Spring 1992, pp.44-48 39 Post, J. V., Proposal for Research in Ground-to-Orbit Laser Propulsion 1987-88, 18 Dec 1986, Talandic Research Corporation, Pasadena (now Irwindale) CA, presented to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Dr. Jordin Kare), first proposed fiber or particulate stiffened cryogenic ice as reaction mass for laser propelled rockets 40 Post, J. V., and Bradbury, Ray, "To Sail Beyond the Sun: A Luminous Collage", Project Solar Sail, ed. Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin, Jonathan V. Post, New York: Roc (Penguin USA), April 1990, pp.33-39 41 Post, J. V., and Uphoff, Chauncey, "A Rebel Technology Comes Alive", Project Solar Sail, ed. Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin, Jonathan V. Post, New York: Roc (Penguin USA), April 1990, pp.95-104 42 Post, J. V., "BrainSails", MindSparks, Laurel, MD, in press (1995) 43 Cassenti, Brice N.; Kammash, T.; and Galbraith, D., "An Antiproton Catalyzed Inertial Fusion Propulsion System", 30th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 27-29 Jun 1994, AIAA 94-3354 44 Post, J. V., et.al., Integrated Space Plan, Feb 1989, Rockwell International Lee Parker ================,,,========================= ===============(o o)======================== ===========oOO==(_)==OOo==================== lparker@cacaphony.net ===========ooooO==Ooooo===================== ===========( )==( )===================== ============\ (====) /====================== =============\_)==(_/======================= From VM Wed Feb 10 17:16:31 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3448" "Wednesday" "10" "February" "1999" "20:02:37" "-0500" "Curtis L. Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "70" "starship-design: money, Fermi, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3448 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14732 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA14711 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:03:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.123.37]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with ESMTP id <19990211010253.EIMC2876@worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: <36C22C2D.6E6BCE12@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E0735C23D0AEF0E06033F006" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Curtis L. Manges" From: "Curtis L. Manges" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:02:37 -0500 --------------E0735C23D0AEF0E06033F006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, but I seem to have started a fight with my use of the word "budget." Let me make two incontrovertably true statements which will, I hope, help put the matter in perspective: STATEMENT 1: The construction of a starship will require the work of a great many people for a very long time. STATEMENT 2: These people have to eat. When I saw the sparks fly, opening with Ben Franchuk's "F__K the budget," I smiled at first and said, "Wow, I've started a fight!" But I quickly became disturbed at the intensity of this exchange, and it got me thinking. As miserable as it is to consider this, I had to wonder if one possible answer to Fermi's question is that those other folks out there could never launch because they could never settle the question of who would pay for the project. Aside from that, I'd like to thank Steve VanDevender for the link on the physics book. I hope it's as good as you say, because I've been needing some help in this area. I tried Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces, and both of Stephen Hawking's books; Feynman was better, but a lot of this still mystifies me. I liked some of what I saw on the Autodynamics site because it seems to simplify things, but I remain open to all viewpoints. Skeptical, but open. The very brief mentions of time warps and space warps got me thinking in another direction: gravity control. How much do we now know about gravity, really? Anyone? Keep looking up, Curtis --------------E0735C23D0AEF0E06033F006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit     Sorry, but I seem to have started a fight with my use of the word "budget." Let me make two incontrovertably true statements which will, I hope, help put the matter in perspective:
        STATEMENT 1:  The construction of a starship will require the work of a great many people for a very long time.
        STATEMENT 2:  These people have to eat.

    When I saw the sparks fly, opening with Ben Franchuk's "F__K the budget," I smiled at first and said, "Wow, I've started a fight!" But I quickly became disturbed at the intensity of this exchange, and it got me thinking. As miserable as it is to consider this, I had to wonder if one possible answer to Fermi's question is that those other folks out there could never launch because they could never settle the question of who would pay for the project.
    Aside from that, I'd like to thank Steve VanDevender for the link on the physics book. I hope it's as good as you say, because I've been needing some help in this area. I tried Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces, and both of Stephen Hawking's books; Feynman was better, but a lot of this still mystifies me. I liked some of what I saw on the Autodynamics site because it seems to simplify things, but I remain open to all viewpoints. Skeptical, but open.
    The very brief mentions of time warps and space warps got me thinking in another direction: gravity control. How much do we now know about gravity, really? Anyone?

Keep looking up,

Curtis --------------E0735C23D0AEF0E06033F006-- From VM Thu Feb 11 13:58:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1150" "Thursday" "11" "February" "1999" "16:32:02" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1150 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA00211 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:48:51 -0800 (PST) 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 NAA00132 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id UPQTa05514 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:32:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 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: money, Fermi, etc. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:32:02 EST In a message dated 2/10/99 8:11:39 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > As miserable as it is to consider this, I had to wonder if >one possible answer to Fermi's question is that those other folks out >there could never launch because they could never settle the question of >who would pay for the project. The big problem with all the suggested Fermi paradox answers is - everybody? Everyone: obeys the quarenteen? blow themselves up? loses interest and degenerates into VR junkies? never figures out a way to pay for it? etc etc Whatever you suggest, it has to be stageringly effective to eliminate every member of every possible species. > The very brief mentions of time warps and space warps got me >thinking in another direction: gravity control. How much do we now know >about gravity, really? Anyone? Well not much really. Nor do we really understand kinetic energy, inertia, mass or a lot of other pretty basic stuff. Some groups at NASA are pushing the idea that physisys should be nuged to look into this and come up with some ideas (usable loop holes would be good too). >Keep looking up, > >Curtis Kelly From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1168" "Friday" "12" "February" "1999" "15:07:48" "-0800" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1168 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21744 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from send102.yahoomail.com (send102.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.90]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA21700 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:07:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19990212230748.20419.rocketmail@send102.yahoomail.com> Received: from [142.194.237.33] by send102.yahoomail.com; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:07:48 PST 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 Subject: Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:07:48 -0800 (PST) "Curtis L. Manges" wrote: > > Sorry, but I seem to have started a fight with my use of the word > "budget." Let me make two incontrovertably true statements which will, I > hope, help put the matter in perspective: > STATEMENT 1: The construction of a starship will require the > work of a great many people for a very long time. > STATEMENT 2: These people have to eat. Oh yeah?!? 8) > The very brief mentions of time warps and space warps got me > thinking in another direction: gravity control. How much do we now know > about gravity, really? Anyone? Oh, warp... the graal of space travel... 8) Actually, we almost don't know anything about gravity. We can calculate the effects, but we don't know how it's doing it.I think that the most popular hypothesis is gravitons(a small particules), but we haven't catched one yet... Do you know any other hypothesis??? BTW, is gravity travelling at c, more, less, or instantaneously?? == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2546" "Friday" "12" "February" "1999" "17:30:33" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2546 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05509 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:34:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05502 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-58.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.58]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA32663 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:34:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C4D5B9.E4444218@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <19990212230748.20419.rocketmail@send102.yahoomail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: money, Fermi, etc. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:30:33 -0800 Paul-V Khuong wrote: > > The very brief mentions of time warps and space warps got me > > thinking in another direction: gravity control. How much do we now > know > > about gravity, really? Anyone? It is possibly controllable. By exposing a superconducting disk to a time variant magnetic field, it is possible, if done correctly, to demonstrate a gravitational modification effect of a small amount. (0.5% to ~6%). Study the work of the following people: David Noever, Ning Li, Eugene Podkletnov, Giovanni Modanese, and John Schnurer. Also study the work of Rex Schlicher (sp?). I have replicated John's work as outlined in his patent. I saw possible transient gravitational 'spikes' of about .5% from a nonmagnetic test mass shielded from buoyancy effects and magnetic coupling. > Oh, warp... the graal of space travel... 8) > Actually, we almost don't know anything about gravity. Correct. > We can calculate the effects, but we don't know how it's doing it.I > think that the most popular hypothesis is gravitons(a small > particules), but we haven't catched one yet... Do you know any other > hypothesis??? Yes, there are others. Graviton theory, or quantum gravity, is currently unworkable. Another theory is based on the assumption that the zero point field interacts with masses to create a sort of long range Van Der Waals force. This lies on the assumption that the field distribution of the ZPF is a frequency cubed type. It also explains inertia effects, assuming that the fields cancel out when an object is at constant speed, but are asymmetrical when an object is accelerated. There is also theory that interation with the ZPF might account for relativistic effects. There are ways to test this theory, but they are extremely complex and currently beyond us. It should also be noted that if the frequency of the ZPF 'cuts off' at the planck frequency (~10^44hz) it *might* act as a sort of absolute reference frame. If it does, it might have all sorts of strange effects. But this is still just theoretical. Others think gravity might be represented by some formulation of a gauge field. But who can say at this point? > > BTW, is gravity travelling at c, more, less, or instantaneously?? Probably at C, but then we must ask the question, what is gravity? Is it merely warpage of spacetime? Or something else? As of right now, I don't think anyone has tried to measure it, so we don't know for certain. We can make good extrapolations from theory, but we don't yet know for certain. Best regards, Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["555" "Friday" "12" "February" "1999" "15:36:22" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 555 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06138 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:36:27 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA06123 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante27.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante27.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.101]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id PAA14610 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:36:23 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante27.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id PAA41974 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:36:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <19990212230748.20419.rocketmail@send102.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA06127 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: money, Fermi, etc. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:36:22 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Paul-V Khuong wrote: > "Curtis L. Manges" wrote: Supposedly, equal to or faster than c, because if vg BTW, is gravity travelling at c, more, less, or instantaneously?? > > == > Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["391" "Friday" "12" "February" "1999" "16:30:02" "-0800" "Fred Reyes" "reyesfred@xoommail.com" nil "10" "starship-design: Zero point field" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 391 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA00399 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from www2.xoommail.com (colo01-033.xoom.com [206.132.179.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA00393 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from service@localhost) by www2.xoommail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07104; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:30:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199902130030.QAA07104@www2.xoommail.com> X-Loop: xoommail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Fred Reyes From: Fred Reyes Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Zero point field Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:30:02 -0800 Being a beginner at this, I am ashamed that I must ask for information you probably deign as well known. But I must ask if I shall learn: Where can I get information about the zero point field? ______________________________________________________ Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com SPECIAL OFFER: 250 Web Site Templates, Only $29.95! - http://orders.xoom.com/email From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1321" "Saturday" "13" "February" "1999" "12:33:36" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "starship-design: Re: Familiar With Shiva Project?" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 JAA09747 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:34:58 -0800 (PST) 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 JAA09742 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:34:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 9CRUa27768; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:33:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9cc0b670.36c5b770@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: fdavis@talleyds.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Familiar With Shiva Project? Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:33:36 EST In a message dated 2/11/99 6:23:29 PM, fdavis@talleyds.com writes: >I stumbled across your website on starship design while >searching for other propulsion information. Are you familiar >with the anti-proton catalyzed, inertially confined fusion >propulsion system the Air Force had invested in a few years >ago? Parts of the project were referred to as "Shiva" (Hindu >god). The anti-proton injector design was made in the late >1980s. > >The project is advancing very slowly, and the injector tests >have yet to be performed. CERN was to provide anti-protons >for the first injection attempts. However, funding continues >and there is a continued presence at Kirkland Air Force Base. I heard of a different project called Shiva, and a anti-proton cat fusino system, but nothing that would cover both. Last I heard the AF gave up on anti-mater as not being cost effective for anything they wanted to do. >I personally don't believe in the pursuit of interstellar spacecraft >for the next fifty to 100 years, but anti-matter systems will make >access to the solar system more routine and practical. > I'm doubt full about anti-mater. The last thing routine practical travel systems need is a phenominally rare, unstable, and hellishly expensive power source. Hope you liked the site though. Kelly Starks From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2169" "Saturday" "13" "February" "1999" "12:21:25" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Zero point field" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2169 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19383 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19376 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-42.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.42]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29855 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:25:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36C5DEC5.D9960A9B@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199902130030.QAA07104@www2.xoommail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Zero point field Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:21:25 -0800 Fred Reyes wrote: > > Being a beginner at this, I am ashamed that I must ask for > information you probably deign as well known. But I must > ask if I shall learn: > Where can I get information about the zero point field? Don't be afraid to ask questions, whatever you do! There is no 'dumb question' when it pertains to science. If a scientists tells you you are asking a dumb question, he is arrogant, and quit probably 'dumb' himself. Now, to answer your question: The zero point field is a 'sea' of electromagnetic fluctuations (EM energy that appears and dissapears) that exists everywhere. If you remove everything from a tiny cube of space, say about one cubic centimeter, including light, neutrinos, atoms, EM fields, everything that you can possibly remove, what have you got left? Actually, you have quite a bit left. Assuming the ZPF's highest possible frequency is the Planck frequency, you have about 10^114 ergs of energy left behind. Why does this energy not gravitate the universe together? That is too complex to get into here, but you can learn more about it by getting copies of Puthoff, Haisch, and Rueda's papers. If you want references, email me privately. It is possible to 'tap' this energy, but it is a one shot effort, and to regauge the system, you must input more energy. This is done using something called a "Casimir cavity." It consists of two closely spaced metal plates, that are moved together. The closer they come, the less ZPF can exist between them, as a wavelength bigger than the cavity could not fit between the plates. The unequal radiation pressure pushes the plates together. Steve Lamareaux demostrated this a few years ago with excellent precision. Robert Forward reports that there is a way to continuously extract energy from the ZPF, but I don't know the details of it. If the ZPF underlies gravitation and inertia, it may be possible to control them by interacting with the ZPF. But how do we do that? No one knows yet. Look up references on Eugene Podkletnov for a very interesting experimental result concerning gravitational control. If you have any further questions, feel free to email me. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Feb 15 09:55:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1746" "Saturday" "13" "February" "1999" "20:05:16" "-0800" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "48" "Hydrogen-based starship(was Re: starship-design: Repost - Alpha Centauri in 6 years...)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1746 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00057 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:04:56 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA00048 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:04:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19990214040516.2140.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com> Received: from [142.194.237.252] by send104.yahoomail.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:05:16 PST 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 Subject: Hydrogen-based starship(was Re: starship-design: Repost - Alpha Centauri in 6 years...) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:05:16 -0800 (PST) "L. Clayton Parker" wrote: > > Things have been slow lately, so....Sorry for its length but there is a > great deal of basic stuff here. > > INTERSTELLAR > > > > Hydrogen Ice Spacecraft for > Robotic Interstellar Flight > by > Jonathan Vos Post, F.B.I.S. 1 > > > ABSTRACT > Spacecraft constructed from cryogenic hydrogen (or deuterium > and tritium) ice can use the same material for structure, > shielding, coolant, and fuel. This type of "autophage" > (self-consuming) spacecraft achieves an extremely low dead-weight > fraction, which is a critical parameter for optimizing the > performance of interstellar spacecraft. > To reduce the volatility of hydrogen ice, a particular > self-refrigerating structure is presented. Hydrogen ice by itself > is imperfect as a structural element; various methods of > stiffening by the admixture of carbon or boron fibers are > discussed. Other cryogens relevant to specific fusion reactions > are considered, including deuterium, tritium, boron-11, and > saturated solutions of lithium in anhydrous ammonia. [snip] For refrigeration, you can use the heat to make electricity(if you put 2 different metals in contact and heat them, there will be electricity produced from heat at the junction of the two metals) Would only accelerate the H and then release it be feasable? Do you think that if the H is put in a cylinded way wit the axis parallel to the movement, it's be stronger? Maybe a rocket/H-based propulsion+solar sail/sail decelaration would be good..... Just some toughts. == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Mon Feb 15 15:18:41 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["398" "Monday" "15" "February" "1999" "18:01:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 398 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23090 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:05:16 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA23005 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:05:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 0VFMa04798; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, jthunderbird@nternet.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:01:08 EST >==Which brings up a couple of questions, how long ago > were these supernovas and where were they? > >Lee Parker I seem to remember a really big one seen low on the southern horizon by the baybalonians. Can't remember what year that was thou. Chinese had records of it too I think? Shone on the surface of the ocean as bright as the moon for a while. (Thats too close for my tastes!) Kelly From VM Mon Feb 15 15:25:51 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1593" "Monday" "15" "February" "1999" "18:01:16" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 PAA29914 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:15:20 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA29884 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:15:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 7JYMa05357; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:01:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16c087d2.36c8a73c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:01:16 EST >==stupidy is not limited to one country or ideology. The > USA may have the biggest space program, but why has > it taken so long for cheap access into space with > $1000 per lb payloads. None of the potential builders has been able to identify a customer for it, but it looks like thats changing. >>== >> Economics is entirely about finding the absolute and >> relative values of these things. Its measured in money. >Then why is the economic system so screwed up? ( I > would like to continue this but it is off topic) Write me off line then, but in general the "economic system" has working pretty well for the last few centuries. >>== > Space stunts will never unite the world, nor will any > other stunt. But any large space craft must be a > global effort,== Well to one degree most new cars are a global effort, but if you want a united world government effort, itd doomed. Multi governmental efforts raise the costs so much everyone would pay less if they went it alone (a cronic finding NASA was never alowed to learn from). >== and any space craft (like star ship > design or the earth ) must have a substainable > envorment. Populaton control is one factor in > a substainable envorment. Then how would you enforce a high enough birth rate? A multi-gen ship would be a modern industrial society, hence sub replacement birth rates. More practically thou is that a slow ship is to expensive and difficult to support. If you can't go fast, wait at home. >(now back to the topic of star ship design ) Well the last bit its starship related. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Feb 15 16:18:09 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["401" "Monday" "15" "February" "1999" "18:02:16" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 QAA27692 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27680 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p383.gnt.com [204.49.91.191]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA15222; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:06:31 -0600 Message-ID: <004801be593f$9d1c6c90$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Still doing stardrives? Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:02:16 -0600 > > I seem to remember a really big one seen low on the southern > horizon by the > baybalonians. Can't remember what year that was thou. Chinese > had records of > it too I think? Shone on the surface of the ocean as bright as > the moon for a > while. (Thats too close for my tastes!) > > Kelly These would have to bigger and closer and longer ago to accomplish what is claimed... Lee Parker From VM Tue Feb 16 09:43:27 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1882" "Tuesday" "16" "February" "1999" "07:49:39" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "36" "RE: starship-design: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1882 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02633 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA02628 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p313.gnt.com [204.49.91.121]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA16534; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:54:31 -0600 Message-ID: <004b01be59b3$328de290$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <36C91BD7.D39B5973@nternet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Johnny Thunderbird" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:49:39 -0600 > That's pretty thin. An atom for 1 cc is sparse, but an atom for 20 cc's is > discouraging. My guesswork is based on the assumption that a starship [CLIP] > I'm perhaps too optimistic, but I don't think the Broussard ramjet > scheme should be written off prematurely. It's such an elegant notion, > it's hard to let go. > Johnny Thunderbird Well, the ramscoop idea may return if we learn how to control EM fields tens of thousands of kilometers in diameter. Given the current local densities it would be impossible to build such a scoop out of material substances. To put a little perspective on this try this: Most of the listers here have heard of beanstalks. Using the top of the line in current technology we could just barely envision building a beanstalk out of buckytubes or diamond fiber or some such. In these schemes the loading (force vector) is parallel to the axis of the beanstalk. This axial load is the beanstalks strongest dimension. Now to build a scoop 10,000 kilometers in diameter, we must do the same thing, but each radial spoke can now only be few millimeters thick, must be much longer than a beanstalk, and the force vector is now a shear load and has increased in magnitude several times. Now add to this the additional load imposed by the impact and channeling of tons of interstellar hydrogen impacting the scoop at 1/3 c. See the problem? A properly designed EM field on the other hand weighs only as much as the generator. It is deep as well as wide so that deflection occurs gradually rather than abruptly. It "attracts" the particles ahead of it, this attraction actually increases the acceleration of the ship. In fact theoretically, if the field could be made strong enough, you wouldn't need engines...just grab the interstellar medium and fling it backwards. Of course, this is well beyond anything we currently know how to do Lee Parker From VM Tue Feb 16 15:32:00 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2286" "Tuesday" "16" "February" "1999" "01:18:47" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2286 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15791 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:29:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15749 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA09537 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7664 invoked by uid 506); 16 Feb 1999 07:16:33 -0000 Received: from pm3-36.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.236) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 1999 07:16:33 -0000 Message-ID: <36C91BD7.D39B5973@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002301be5445$051c9b30$0101a8c0@claymore> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Clayton Parker" CC: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Still doing stardrives? Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:18:47 -0600 L. Clayton Parker wrote: > > > I used a Broussard ramscoop to supplement onboard > > > fuel, so your discouraging asessment of the prospects > > > of this technology will need further checking. > > The last paper I saw published on the ISM gives a density of 0.05 for the > local area out to about 150 ly and 0.001 after that. The average for the > galaxy however, is closer to 10.0. The reason for the low local density was > given as old supernova events in the local area. That's pretty thin. An atom for 1 cc is sparse, but an atom for 20 cc's is discouraging. My guesswork is based on the assumption that a starship will have plenty of energy available. What runs short is reaction mass. Mass gets expensive in a fractional-C framework, but you have to have something to throw out the back. Before going to more elaborate schemes to procure reaction mass, let me check a couple of notions. I spotted a paper a couple years ago, to the effect our system had just entered the fringe of an interstellar gas cloud. Was this (a) just bunk, or (b) included in the accounting? I could easily accept that both concepts, that we're in a low-density region, and that we're also in a gas cloud, can be true together, just a matter of relative scale. Then again, another factor: our system is englobed in the Oort Cloud of widely scattered solid debris, out to maybe 1 ly. This is made of chunks of ices. It's really chilly so far from the Sun, but there has to be some kind of residual vapor pressure, sublimed off these pieces of ice. So it's just a light year out; well, that's enough room to get up a fair head start. But what if it doesn't sublime? What if there's no appreciable vapor pressure out there? Well, as humans, we have a general answer for undesirable situations, we shoot. We have ways of making things vaporize. A few months of burning a powerful laser should create a channel of enhanced vapor through the Oort cloud. Accelerating through this channel, our ship should build up enough speed to cope with the rarefied environment of deep space. I'm perhaps too optimistic, but I don't think the Broussard ramjet scheme should be written off prematurely. It's such an elegant notion, it's hard to let go. Regards, Johnny Thunderbird http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage From VM Tue Feb 16 15:32:21 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3876" "Tuesday" "16" "February" "1999" "02:35:52" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "75" "starship-design: Re: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3876 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15871 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:29:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA15830 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA26535 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8243 invoked by uid 506); 16 Feb 1999 08:33:38 -0000 Received: from pm3-09.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.209) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 1999 08:33:38 -0000 Message-ID: <36C92DE8.62F14BE0@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" CC: "L. Clayton Parker" , KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:35:52 -0600 Hi Nels: N. Lindberg wrote: > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% > of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the > axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and > superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into > photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they > exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from any > Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the > galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at > high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether > this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. > Best Regards, > Nels Lindberg First off, I'm not entirely comfortable with superstring theory. On the one hand, it's delightfully outrageous enough to be true, but on the other, it's kind of counterintuitive, to have a hatful of dimensions rolled up into a microcosm. You have the very direct challenge, whether this theory is falsifiable, to meet Karl Popper's criterion for a scientific hypothesis. More deeply, any theory so esoteric has a serious epistemological concern: say it makes a prediction, and this predicted phenomonon is actually observed. Does that indeed produce evidence that the theory has been triumphantly vindicated? Or does the observation have any connection at all with the theory? It is possible that the observed phenomonon is utter coincidence, that the theory is false anyway, and the actual causality of the observation consists of a mechanism as yet completely unknown to science. So a cosmology has a tough row to hoe before it can be accepted. No matter how pretty its exotic math, it must remain a dream castle until it meets lots of tough tests. I never heard of the axion. Supposing a magnetic field splits it into photons, which leave in a hurry. Either they decay isotropically, in all directions, or they decay anisotropically, with a preferred direction. Right away, we can assign a higher probability to the isotropic case, because the alternative seems to violate symmetry, which is one of the ways Nature likes to keep things neat. (If there were to be a preferred direction, it seems to make sense that it would be at right angles to the field lines, though like I said, I doubt there is such a preference.) It seems our ship's field has done work on these particles, to make them pop. So the field has been weakened, in the amount needed to catalyze this decay. The effect might produce a visible light in front of the ship. (An unfortunate consequence of our high velocity is to blue-shift this light, possibly into unhealthy ranges which would require additional shielding.) Overall, a release of energy in front of the ship is necessarily a detrimental effect, in exactly the same sense that any release of energy behind the ship must contribute to our acceleration. So I hope there aren't any axions out there. A possible salvage would be in contributing to the ionization of neutral hydrogen atoms, to feed our scoops. We can do lots of things with ions, like making them jump through hoops, that we can't do with neutral atoms. A plasma is just what we want to work with, for we can separate the streams of electrons and protons and accelerate each of them by appropriate means. To use our extremely limited supply of reaction mass most effectively, we must push it out within a gnat's ass of C. That means a proton linac, because electrons are ridiculously easy to get up to speed. We must do all this while watching the charge balance of the ship itself, so things don't get silly aboard. I hope axions don't exist, because they would be hard to wade through. Yours, Johnny Thunderbird heavyLight Books http://fly.to/heavyLight From VM Wed Feb 17 09:55:24 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3734" "Wednesday" "17" "February" "1999" "21:06:05" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "82" "Re: starship-design: Still doing stardrives?" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3734 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA04558 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep8.mail.ozemail.net (fep8.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA04541 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne10p32.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.160]) by fep8.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15556; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:11:43 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <016d01be5a65$d0cc4fc0$a0eb6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Johnny Thunderbird" , "L. Clayton Parker" Cc: Subject: Re: starship-design: Still doing stardrives? Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:06:05 +1000 Hi Group ----- Original Message ----- From: Johnny Thunderbird To: L. Clayton Parker Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 5:18 PM Subject: Re: starship-design: Still doing stardrives? > FIRSTLY: It's BUSSARD RAMJET > >L. Clayton Parker wrote: > >> > > I used a Broussard ramscoop to supplement onboard >> > > fuel, so your discouraging asessment of the prospects >> > > of this technology will need further checking. >> >> The last paper I saw published on the ISM gives a density of 0.05 for the >> local area out to about 150 ly and 0.001 after that. The average for the >> galaxy however, is closer to 10.0. The reason for the low local density was >> given as old supernova events in the local area. > >That's pretty thin. An atom for 1 cc is sparse, but an atom for 20 cc's is >discouraging. My guesswork is based on the assumption that a starship >will have plenty of energy available. What runs short is reaction mass. >Mass gets expensive in a fractional-C framework, but you have to have >something to throw out the back. Before going to more elaborate schemes >to procure reaction mass, let me check a couple of notions. > >I spotted a paper a couple years ago, to the effect our system had just >entered the fringe of an interstellar gas cloud. Was this (a) just bunk, or >(b) included in the accounting? I could easily accept that both concepts, >that we're in a low-density region, and that we're also in a gas cloud, can >be true together, just a matter of relative scale. > We could be on the inside of a bubble which has swept up near space's matter into a "high pressure" front, leaving a relative "vacuum" behind it. >Then again, another factor: our system is englobed in the Oort Cloud of >widely scattered solid debris, out to maybe 1 ly. This is made of chunks >of ices. It's really chilly so far from the Sun, but there has to be some >kind of residual vapor pressure, sublimed off these pieces of ice. So it's >just a light year out; well, that's enough room to get up a fair head start. > Oort comets are a lot less dense, if spread out, than interstellar matter. A trillion comets may seem huge, but the volume they occupy thins them out. Comets could be mined for fuel, but they aren't likely prospects for scooping up as you fly. >But what if it doesn't sublime? What if there's no appreciable vapor >pressure out there? Well, as humans, we have a general answer for >undesirable situations, we shoot. We have ways of making things >vaporize. A few months of burning a powerful laser should create a >channel of enhanced vapor through the Oort cloud. Accelerating >through this channel, our ship should build up enough speed to cope >with the rarefied environment of deep space. > >I'm perhaps too optimistic, but I don't think the Broussard ramjet >scheme should be written off prematurely. It's such an elegant notion, >it's hard to let go. > >Regards, >Johnny Thunderbird >http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage > Perhaps a better system would be to beam "propellant" at the ship. Leave all your power and fuel at home. But Bussard ramjets make continuous acceleration almost possible, if we can reduce the drag of the scoop fields. Presently there's no clear way on just how that can be done. Magnetic braking however is a real possibility and it dramatically improves starship performance. Other possibilities involve fringe physics - tapping GUT energy, or the Higgs field, or quantum vacuum energy - and are just a bit beyond our current reach. When we know just how the 11 or so dimensions of space-time are folded up then we might be able to figure out how to bend space to our needs. Adam > From VM Wed Feb 17 09:55:24 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1588" "Wednesday" "17" "February" "1999" "21:15:15" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1588 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA05263 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:19:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep8.mail.ozemail.net (fep8.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA05258 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne10p32.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.160]) by fep8.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18600; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:18:56 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <018d01be5a66$d35cf040$a0eb6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" , "L. Clayton Parker" Cc: , , Subject: Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:15:15 +1000 Hi Group, ----- Original Message ----- From: N. Lindberg To: L. Clayton Parker Cc: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:55 AM Subject: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% >of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the >axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and >superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into >photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they >exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from any >Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the >galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at >high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether >this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. > Best Regards, > Nels Lindberg > Interesting thought. Reminds me of Haisch and co's work on inertia as the ZPF's reaction to an accelerating charge. Perhaps Dark Matter will turn out to be neutralinos instead, since some researchers think they've actually found a few. I think if you're moving fast enough to worry about axion decay you'll be fending off a whole lot more radiation from interstellar gas interacting with your scoop fields - synchrotron radiation would get pretty bad ar close to c. Adam From VM Wed Feb 17 12:18:43 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2273" "Wednesday" "17" "February" "1999" "12:11:10" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "50" "Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2273 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25383 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:11:17 -0800 (PST) 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 MAA25278 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:11:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante18.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante18.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.68]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id MAA23140 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:11:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante18.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id MAA29666 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:11:10 -0800 In-Reply-To: <018d01be5a66$d35cf040$a0eb6ccb@default> 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: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:11:10 -0800 (PST) I read an abstract recently of an experimental setup to measure axion decay in a strong magnetic field. Preliminary results indicate that _something_ is going on. Also there was some kind of result at the Gran Sasso facility in Italy having to do with dark matter (WIMPs as I recall). Look it up if you're interested. Another thing that I forgot to mention, if axions are a big part of DM, then they would tend to sink to the center of the sun locally. Their presence could help to explain the 'solar neutrino problem' that so vexes the standard model. Nels On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > Hi Group, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: N. Lindberg > To: L. Clayton Parker > Cc: ; ; > > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:55 AM > Subject: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still > doing stardrives') > > > > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% > >of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the > >axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and > >superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into > >photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they > >exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from any > >Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the > >galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at > >high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether > >this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. > > Best Regards, > > Nels Lindberg > > > Interesting thought. Reminds me of Haisch and co's work on inertia as the > ZPF's reaction to an accelerating charge. Perhaps Dark Matter will turn out > to be neutralinos instead, since some researchers think they've actually > found a few. I think if you're moving fast enough to worry about axion decay > you'll be fending off a whole lot more radiation from interstellar gas > interacting with your scoop fields - synchrotron radiation would get pretty > bad ar close to c. > > Adam > > > From VM Thu Feb 18 09:26:03 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["249" "Wednesday" "17" "February" "1999" "22:20:59" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "8" "starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 249 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26530 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26521 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-36.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.36]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA12071 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:24:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CBB14B.871B651@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:20:59 -0800 All: Anyone here know where I can get more information on Robert Bussard's voltage compressed fusion reactor concept? I know the basics, 6 foot diameter, power output 1/3 of a commercial power plant, etc. Need more information. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Thu Feb 18 09:26:03 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3636" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "23:03:04" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "88" "Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3636 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21292 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep8.mail.ozemail.net (fep8.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA21286 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne15p20.ozemail.com.au [203.108.206.212]) by fep8.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA27822; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:12:31 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <004301be5b3f$d74f0560$d4ce6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" , "starship design" Subject: Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:03:04 +1000 Hi Group, Nels I think you're confusing two different types of DM. Axions are very light particles - fractions of an electron volt - so they can't be WIMPs [Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.] They're kind of like neutrinos for SUSY and would make great "hot" DM. Neutralinos are massive - 60 GeV at the lightest - and so make great WIMPs. Every baryon should have a corresponding neutralino, so they'd very neatly explain DM's proportion to "light matter" ~ 100/1. Axions wouldn't sink into the Sun, since they flit around at near c constantly, but neutralinos would. However I personally think that helioseismological data rules out any kind of solar core cooling explanation of the solar neutrino problem. Neutrino oscillations are the most likely option since the deficit seems to selectively hit certain parts of the neutrino spectrum. Adam PS Heavy DM also explains why DM seems to congregate more at the cluster level - it'd take longer to clump at galactic densities than "light matter", so most of it would still be infalling. ----- Original Message ----- From: N. Lindberg To: starship design Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:11 AM Subject: Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') > I read an abstract recently of an experimental setup to measure axion >decay in a strong magnetic field. Preliminary results indicate that >_something_ is going on. Also there was some kind of result at the Gran >Sasso facility in Italy having to do with dark matter (WIMPs as I recall). >Look it up if you're interested. Another thing that I forgot to mention, >if axions are a big part of DM, then they would tend to sink to the center >of the sun locally. Their presence could help to explain the 'solar >neutrino problem' that so vexes the standard model. > Nels > > >On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > >> Hi Group, >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: N. Lindberg >> To: L. Clayton Parker >> Cc: ; ; >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:55 AM >> Subject: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still >> doing stardrives') >> >> >> > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% >> >of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the >> >axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and >> >superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays into >> >photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they >> >exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from any >> >Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the >> >galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at >> >high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether >> >this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. >> > Best Regards, >> > Nels Lindberg >> > >> Interesting thought. Reminds me of Haisch and co's work on inertia as the >> ZPF's reaction to an accelerating charge. Perhaps Dark Matter will turn out >> to be neutralinos instead, since some researchers think they've actually >> found a few. I think if you're moving fast enough to worry about axion decay >> you'll be fending off a whole lot more radiation from interstellar gas >> interacting with your scoop fields - synchrotron radiation would get pretty >> bad ar close to c. >> >> Adam >> >> >> > > From VM Thu Feb 18 09:26:03 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["763" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "23:22:00" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 FAA25784 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep8.mail.ozemail.net (fep8.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA25772 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne15p20.ozemail.com.au [203.108.206.212]) by fep8.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26352; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:42:59 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <006801be5b44$17f3a5e0$d4ce6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" , Subject: Re: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:22:00 +1000 Hi Group, Tom Ligon seems to be Doc Bussard's main outlet at present. They're a bit cagey about the fusor [understandably] but doubtless he can help. His e-mail address is: Tom Ligon E-mail Address: tomligon@compuserve.com So pay him a visit. If he isn't busy he's fairly prompt. Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle R. Mcallister To: Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 4:20 PM Subject: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor >All: > >Anyone here know where I can get more information on Robert Bussard's >voltage compressed fusion reactor concept? I know the basics, 6 foot >diameter, power output 1/3 of a commercial power plant, etc. Need more >information. > >Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Thu Feb 18 12:31:25 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4872" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "12:26:13" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "112" "Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives')" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4872 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21567 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason03.u.washington.edu (root@jason03.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21539 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante17.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante17.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.67]) by jason03.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id MAA26272 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:26:14 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante17.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id MAA54092 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:26:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <004301be5b3f$d74f0560$d4ce6ccb@default> 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: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was 'still doing stardrives') Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:26:13 -0800 (PST) AJ, Galactic DM is prohibited from high velocity because it has to stay bound to the galaxy. If axions are a part of Galactic DM, then they should have fairly low velocities. That they have low mass (.3-.6eV, I think) doesn't matter if you have a //lot// of them, or they are merely one kind of DM particle in a zoo of them. Also, axions with high velocity ought to be rare, because in order to get to a high speed localy, a primordial axion would need to interact with some particle. Gravity isn't likely to do that, and electromagnetic interactions cause decay. Therefore I doubt that there is a local population of axions with a large average velocity. Which leads me to a pipedream i had last night. Given that there is a lot of DM out there, thinned out though it may be, a starship could use it as a fuel and/or reaction mass, at least at high speed when the flux is higher. Anyone know of any exotic particles that decay covienienly, preferably liberating lots of juice as they do so? Nels On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > Hi Group, > > Nels I think you're confusing two different types of DM. Axions are very > light particles - fractions of an electron volt - so they can't be WIMPs > [Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.] They're kind of like neutrinos for > SUSY and would make great "hot" DM. Neutralinos are massive - 60 GeV at the > lightest - and so make great WIMPs. Every baryon should have a corresponding > neutralino, so they'd very neatly explain DM's proportion to "light matter" > ~ 100/1. Axions wouldn't sink into the Sun, since they flit around at near c > constantly, but neutralinos would. However I personally think that > helioseismological data rules out any kind of solar core cooling explanation > of the solar neutrino problem. Neutrino oscillations are the most likely > option since the deficit seems to selectively hit certain parts of the > neutrino spectrum. > > Adam > > PS > Heavy DM also explains why DM seems to congregate more at the cluster > level - it'd take longer to clump at galactic densities than "light matter", > so most of it would still be infalling. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: N. Lindberg > To: starship design > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:11 AM > Subject: Re: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was > 'still doing stardrives') > > > > I read an abstract recently of an experimental setup to measure axion > >decay in a strong magnetic field. Preliminary results indicate that > >_something_ is going on. Also there was some kind of result at the Gran > >Sasso facility in Italy having to do with dark matter (WIMPs as I recall). > >Look it up if you're interested. Another thing that I forgot to mention, > >if axions are a big part of DM, then they would tend to sink to the center > >of the sun locally. Their presence could help to explain the 'solar > >neutrino problem' that so vexes the standard model. > > Nels > > > > > >On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > > > >> Hi Group, > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: N. Lindberg > >> To: L. Clayton Parker > >> Cc: ; ; > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:55 AM > >> Subject: starship-design: A few thoughts on drag & exoitc stuff(was > 'still > >> doing stardrives') > >> > >> > >> > One of the candidates for the 'dark matter' that accounts for 90% > >> >of our universe and our galaxy is a low-rest mass particle called the > >> >axion. This is one of those wierd things that are predicted by SUSY and > >> >superstring theories. It has the interesting property that it decays > into > >> >photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Of course, if they > >> >exist in large quantity in interstellar space, the magnetic field from > any > >> >Bussard scoop would cause their decay. At low speeds (relative to the > >> >galactic DM halo) the microwaves produced wouldn't be a big deal, but at > >> >high speed they could produce enourmous effects. I have no idea whether > >> >this would produce drag, thrust, or a force normal to the path. > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Nels Lindberg > >> > > >> Interesting thought. Reminds me of Haisch and co's work on inertia as the > >> ZPF's reaction to an accelerating charge. Perhaps Dark Matter will turn > out > >> to be neutralinos instead, since some researchers think they've actually > >> found a few. I think if you're moving fast enough to worry about axion > decay > >> you'll be fending off a whole lot more radiation from interstellar gas > >> interacting with your scoop fields - synchrotron radiation would get > pretty > >> bad ar close to c. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > From VM Thu Feb 18 13:19:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2273" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "13:12:39" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "52" "starship-design: Dark Matter" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2273 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15861 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15831 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt (watt [128.97.22.10]) by physics.ucla.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA18139 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27156; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199902182112.NAA27156@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Dark Matter Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:12:39 -0800 Hi all; no one's heard from me for awhile 'cause I've been busy becoming Dr. Ken. Of course that's no reason to take me any more or less seriously... This is the comment which brought me out of "retirement": > Which leads me to a pipedream i had last night. Given that there >is a lot of DM out there, thinned out though it may be, a starship >could >use it as a fuel and/or reaction mass, at least at high speed when the >flux is higher. Anyone know of any exotic particles that decay >covienienly, preferably liberating lots of juice as they do so? Well, actually... I don't know if anyone remembers me going off about time-reversed matter a few years back, but I've kept thinking about it. In fact, I've written a full paper summarizing my ideas. The basic motivation is to give the universe the same symmetries that the laws of physics already have. The basic conclusion is that a large portion of dark matter should be time-reversed photons (with a future boundary condition, or "cause", rather than the normal past boundary condition). If I'm right (which I'm almost certainly not) these photons would interact with normal matter in a very strange fashion, releasing energy when they hit. I've devised an experiment that's capable of proving me wrong, but apart from that there's no objective difference between this work and a lot of crazy cosmology out there, so I don't expect anyone to take me too seriously. Anyway, the full paper is now online at: http://members.xoom.com/KenWharton/symm.htm Figure 4e shows a simple schematic of how this "dark matter" might interact with ordinary matter. If you get bogged down in the paper (a common occurance), a quick summary of the concepts can be found here: http://members.xoom.com/KenWharton/symm2.htm Hope it's somewhat comprehensible (and that it doesn't ruin my career as a physicist!) Ken P.S. I now work with the guy whose thesis concluded that axions exist (this was the work done in Italy that someone mentioned). He told me that he made a terrible blunder in his data analysis, and when he re-did the calculations the axion effect mostly went away. He had already graduated at that point, but still wasn't too pleased to learn his thesis was totally wrong... From VM Thu Feb 18 14:41:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2587" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "16:20:26" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "58" "starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2587 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23335 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA23274 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:24:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-25.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.25]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21125 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:24:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CCAE4A.6F8467D@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently... Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:20:26 -0800 Very interesting...according to relativity, the speed of light can not be slowed down at all. The only 'apparent' slowing is caused by refractivity changes. This is quite strange. According to science editor Michael Guillen on Good Morning America, this is very bad news for relativity as we know it. I tend to agree, however I am biased due to the fact that I have seen FTL effects myself...;) See below: The Electronic Telegraph ISSUE 1364 Thursday 18 February 1999 Scientists put brakes on light By Roger Highfield, Science Editor SCIENTISTS have managed to slow down the speed of light so that it can be overtaken by a bicycle. By passing it through an illuminated atomic cloud, they have cut the speed of a pulse of yellow laser light from 186,000 miles per second to 0.01 mile per second and plan to reduce it further to a crawl of about half an inch a second. This puts the speed of light in the shade when compared with the world-record cyclist Bruce Bursford, who has clocked up 207 miles per hour or 0.057 miles per second. The feat is reported today by Dr Lene Hau of the Rowland Institute for Science, and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and colleagues. Light is already known to slow down a little when it enters a piece of glass, because glass has a refractive index which is larger than that of free space. Dr Hau said: "We are using a much more interesting mechanism to slow light down by a factor of 20 million." The trick is to use one light beam to alter the refractive index of an unusual medium - a cloud of sodium atoms cooled to ultra-low temperatures known as a "Bose-Einstein condensate" - in such a way that it can slow down a second pulse of light. The trick has a number of applications, Dr Hau said, such as converting infra-red light into blue light. "In the future, this could be of importance for laser light projectors - it is hard to generate blue light otherwise." Another possible use is in night vision. She said: "This technique can be used to convert infrared light to the visible spectrum (so we can see it) at low power cost." The technology could also help to reduce the noise in communications, and create switches that can control light. These may be useful in computers that work on light rather than electricity. Dr Hau said: "These possible applications are of course for the future - perhaps 10 years down the line if we get to work on it. Right now we have an experimental set-up where we are pushing technology to the outermost limit. We'll have to figure out how to make this into a practical instrument." From VM Thu Feb 18 15:08:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1232" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "15:04:16" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1232 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14165 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14133 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA09724 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16770; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:04:18 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14028.40048.357179.244889@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36CCAE4A.6F8467D@sunherald.infi.net> References: <36CCAE4A.6F8467D@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Light is not a constant, apparently... Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:04:16 -0800 (PST) Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > Very interesting...according to relativity, the speed of light can not > be slowed down at all. The only 'apparent' slowing is caused by > refractivity changes. This is quite strange. According to science editor > Michael Guillen on Good Morning America, this is very bad news for > relativity as we know it. I tend to agree, however I am biased due to > the fact that I have seen FTL effects myself...;) See below: Relativity has dealt with the existence of refractive materials from the beginning. At the quantum level the average slowdown of the speed of light in a refractive material is actually caused by delays between the absorption and re-emission of photons by electrons in the material. All the experimenters have done is create a Bose-Einstein condensate with an extremely high index of refraction. Relativity is still fine. And, Kyle, until you actually publish a replicable experiement and others successfully replicate it your claims of having seen FTL effects are completely untenable. I don't want to hear about how you're using some "proprietary" material in some way you don't want to tell us about and that you won't let anyone else touch. It's not how science is done. From VM Thu Feb 18 16:18:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1064" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "18:09:36" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Dark Matter" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1064 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20086 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA20069 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:14:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p419.gnt.com [204.49.91.227]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA08063; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:14:12 -0600 Message-ID: <000201be5b9c$22429fd0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199902182112.NAA27156@watt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ken Wharton" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Dark Matter Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:09:36 -0600 > Well, actually... > > I don't know if anyone remembers me going off about time-reversed matter > a few years back, but I've kept thinking about it. In fact, I've > written a full paper summarizing my ideas. The basic motivation is to > give the universe the same symmetries that the laws of physics already > have. The basic conclusion is that a large portion of dark matter > should be time-reversed photons (with a future boundary condition, or > "cause", rather than the normal past boundary condition). If I'm right > (which I'm almost certainly not) these photons would interact with > normal matter in a very strange fashion, releasing energy when they hit. > I've devised an experiment that's capable of proving me wrong, but apart > from that there's no objective difference between this work and a lot of > crazy cosmology out there, so I don't expect anyone to take me too > seriously. I think what you are referring to is negative matter which is distinct from antimatter. I think Kramer has written a paper on it and so has Forward. Lee Parker From VM Thu Feb 18 16:37:26 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1064" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "16:33:30" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "27" "starship-design: Re: Dark Matter" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1064 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27228 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27146 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:33:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt (watt [128.97.22.10]) by physics.ucla.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA25547 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28419; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:33:30 -0800 Message-Id: <199902190033.QAA28419@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Dark Matter Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:33:30 -0800 Lee, >I think what you are referring to is negative matter which is distinct from >antimatter. I think Kramer has written a paper on it and so has Forward. I'm not sure if you mean negative mass along these lines: http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw14.html But if so, my stuff is very different. The only difference between my "dark" matter and regular matter is the temporal orientation of the boundary condition. Masses are still positive; it's just that now "causes" lie in the future, which has all sort of confusing logical consequences. The only place I have ever seen this idea mentioned is in a 1996 book by Huw Price (ref. 9 in my online paper). I've discussed the origin of the concept with Dr. Price, and he claims it is his own idea, and that he has yet to see it appear elsewhere in the literature. But Price didn't go into the details; just mentioned it as a possibility. BTW, even if this idea is right, it's of doubtful utility for spaceship propulsion... I calculate a universal intensity of about 10^-8 Watts/cm^2. Ken From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3655" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "19:07:27" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "65" "Re: starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3655 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA12952 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA12945 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:11:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-20.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.20]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA30544 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 20:11:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CCD56F.250BA5EE@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36CCAE4A.6F8467D@sunherald.infi.net> <14028.40048.357179.244889@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Light is not a constant, apparently... Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:07:27 -0800 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Relativity has dealt with the existence of refractive materials > from the beginning. At the quantum level the average slowdown of > the speed of light in a refractive material is actually caused by > delays between the absorption and re-emission of photons by > electrons in the material. All the experimenters have done is > create a Bose-Einstein condensate with an extremely high index of > refraction. Relativity is still fine. I know what you said, and I understand it. But I do disagree with your assumption that relativity is 'still fine.' You are a computer science person (what you told me a year back) not a physicist. Dr. Michael Guillen is a physics researcher, and he holds a doctorate. They don't hire idiots to be the science editor for a major news program. If you want to compete with him, or anyone like him for that matter, you are welcome to it. You will find you are not in the best position. > > And, Kyle, until you actually publish a replicable experiement > and others successfully replicate it your claims of having seen > FTL effects are completely untenable. And I have said to the group before: I cannot tell you how to replicate it yet. I will in a while, when my testing is finished. You could build one yourself if you wanted to. It is fairly simple. You can do something right now though: take a TV delay line, use one from an OLD color TV, and put a square wave signal through it. By varying the resistance with some potentiometers, you can vary the speed of transmission. There are those that argue that this is due simply to transformer induction effects. Well, you can make it non-inductive. This is sort of the way my setup works. > I don't want to hear about > how you're using some "proprietary" material in some way you > don't want to tell us about and that you won't let anyone else > touch. It's not how science is done. I have let many people 'touch' this. The people at my college have. They are frankly shocked by this. If you want to know why I am not releasing full details to everyone yet, I have no idea. My co-worker is the one who is secretive. I don't give a damn about trying to get money from something like this...I just want it to be published and 'out there' so to speak. When I get more done, I am going to release it. Really this isn't *my* device per se, but was invented over ten years ago. No one followed it up. So you understand, I want to confirm it. I have. It works. When I have a concrete design, I will let you know EXACTLY how to build it. And really, I don't give a damn what you want to hear about; I posted something I though was interesting. And, yes, science is done by experimentation. It is not sitting around and theorizing about something. That is THEORIZING. If you want to do science, do an experiment, for Gods sake! I have, and I have sent a signal through this device, varied the frequency, the delay is exactly the same: coincident. If it is coupling through the coils, I don't know how. It is noninductive, and a wire of equal length of one run cannot detect the signal when placed half the distance from a winding than the windings are nominally spaced. If it is inducting, then I will still be interested: it will show me that there is a way to induct noninductively. This is a phase velocity exceeding C, and a frequency modulation exceeding C. I will now attempt a different form of modulation. Instead of modulating a dead carrier wave, I want to send trains of beeps down the line, and listen to them. If I detect no delay, then it is excellent. If the delay is less than C, I will be quite confused. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["704" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "19:12:37" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 704 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA22035 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA22025 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA06692 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17820; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:12:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14028.54949.996589.144037@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36CCD56F.250BA5EE@sunherald.infi.net> References: <36CCAE4A.6F8467D@sunherald.infi.net> <14028.40048.357179.244889@tzadkiel.efn.org> <36CCD56F.250BA5EE@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Light is not a constant, apparently... Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:12:37 -0800 (PST) Again, Kyle: If you want to be believed, publish real results. Describe your experiment in enough detail that someone can build the same equipment and perform the same procedures you do, and show what measurements you've made (in numbers, with error estimates) that supposedly demonstrate the effect you think you're getting. Don't give vague answers or swear up and down that it works without giving anyone real data to verify your claims. I can't even theorize about what you're doing because you won't tell us anything concrete. In any case, this is getting off-topic for starship-design. When you can demonstrate (and others can replicate) that you can move mass FTL, it might be on-topic again. From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1940" "Thursday" "18" "February" "1999" "21:38:23" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "33" "starship-design: Public apology to Steve" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1940 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28250 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:42:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA28224 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-26.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.26]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA27696 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:42:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CCF8CF.2A50740C@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: starship-design: Public apology to Steve Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:38:23 -0800 I want all of you to hear this, and especially Steve: I must apologize for what I said in my reply to Steve's email. I was pretty out of line, mainly due to the fact that someone very close to me is near death from cancer. No matter, I wish to clarify something I said earlier: it wasn't my conclusion that the experiment indicated relativity was wrong...I didn't really understand how it applied to relativity at all. It was interesting, but to tell you the truth, didn't seem to affect it one way or another. I was told that Dr. Guillen said it did disprove relativity. If it does, that is very interesting. I would be very interested in knowing how to modify it to work with the results. If it doesn't affect relativity, okay too. As for my FTL experiment, I posted this because I get excited about things like that. This subject of light, and time, and FTL, and such, is very near and dear to my heart, so to speak. When I get a concrete design working, I will tell you how to build one, so you can make it work too. I want you to see it. Maybe it isn't matter, but it is still fascinating! Steve, I don't know if you meant to insult me or not in your email. The one you just sent didn't seem insulting, and in fact it was right. I shouldn't have posted about my experiment until I was ready to share it. I ask you all to forgive me. Steve, I said many things in my reply that I shouldn't have. I apologize, and ask that you also forgive me. Now, lets get back to business. Has anyone heard anything interesting that is applicable to SSD? In my opinion, we need to get to work on something, be it a fast ship or slow ship. As far as it being economically feasible, right now it won't be. So deciding whether a slowship or fastship would be useful isn't too workable. Do we plan to present these designs to someone in a year or two, or should we just work on this? In any case, lets design something. Best regards, Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["858" "Friday" "19" "February" "1999" "08:46:25" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Starship Engineering" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 858 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11236 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA11231 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p278.gnt.com [204.49.91.38]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA12922 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:50:52 -0600 Message-ID: <000301be5c16$9fccaf20$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Starship Engineering Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:46:25 -0600 Kyle was asking for something new that actually related to SSD. Does anyone know anything about progress in materials science regarding foamed metals? I know I heard on a news program several months ago that they had made some of these panels here on Earth (not in zero-G) and that they were much lighter and stronger than conventional metal panels. It seems that this is one of the things we need in order to build a starship. It would increase structural strength while decreasing vehicle mass and that has to be a good thing. I assume the ones that have been made already were aluminum or aluminum alloy. Lee Parker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["563" "Friday" "19" "February" "1999" "11:29:26" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Starship Engineering" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 563 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03155 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03141 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:33:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-58.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.58]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA11410 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:33:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36CDBB96.F8175862@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000301be5c16$9fccaf20$0101a8c0@claymore> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Starship Engineering Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:29:26 -0800 L. Clayton Parker wrote: > It seems that this is one of the things we need in order to build a > starship. It would increase structural strength while decreasing vehicle > mass and that has to be a good thing. I assume the ones that have been made > already were aluminum or aluminum alloy. Yes, something like this would be very good. But we couldn't replace everything with it. SInce it is less dense, it will be a much less efficient radiation shield than denser metal. Perhaps this material could be used for internal parts of the ship? Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["938" "Friday" "19" "February" "1999" "18:52:09" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 938 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA11436 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:54:41 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA11413 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 3LMQa03214; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:52:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:52:09 EST Well the web site lists the papers I got te information from. Beyond that the AIAA web site has a serach function to look up topics, and you can order the papers. There are also some other voltage compression studies detailed on the web (sorry don't have the URL's with me), including photos of test versinos recomended for class studies. Kelly ======================>>>>> Subj: starship-design: Bussard fusion reactor Date: Wed, Feb 17, 1999 11:26 PM EST From: stk@sunherald.infi.net X-From: stk@sunherald.infi.net (Kyle R. Mcallister) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Reply-to: stk@sunherald.infi.net (Kyle R. Mcallister) To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu All: Anyone here know where I can get more information on Robert Bussard's voltage compressed fusion reactor concept? I know the basics, 6 foot diameter, power output 1/3 of a commercial power plant, etc. Need more information. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["858" "Friday" "19" "February" "1999" "18:15:15" "-0800" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 858 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00435 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:16:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from send1e.yahoomail.com (send1e.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.64]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA00390 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:16:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19990220021515.12217.rocketmail@send1e.yahoomail.com> Received: from [142.194.231.41] by send1e; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:15:15 PST 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 Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:15:15 -0800 (PST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > >==stupidy is not limited to one country or ideology. The > > USA may have the biggest space program, but why has > > it taken so long for cheap access into space with > > $1000 per lb payloads. > > None of the potential builders has been able to identify a customer for it, > but it looks like thats changing. Yeah. Know what? The NASA doesn't want to put a Canadian satellite on orbit 'cause the CIA or FBI say it's too powerful!!!!(Anyway, why haven't the canadians launched it by Ariane: it's the one with the best history and it's cheaper...) Looks like if they didn't reject customers, they'd have more customers, right?? Now, back to s d == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["493" "Saturday" "20" "February" "1999" "07:12:38" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "starship-design: Starship Engineering" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 493 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29672 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA29665 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p236.gnt.com [204.49.89.236]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA27646; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:17:33 -0600 Message-ID: <000a01be5cd2$b06f8a20$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <36CE2D23.7F3166CB@sunherald.infi.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Cc: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Starship Engineering Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:12:38 -0600 > If it is as good as it sounds, it might solve many of our problems. > Where did you hear about this material at? It sounds like something we > should definitely look into. Things like material engineering are topics > that SSD is sadly lacking research on. I know some guys that are working > with composites...I'll talk to them and see what I can dig up. > > Kyle R. Mcallister While you are asking, check out something called "intermettalics". There is some info on the web. Lee Parker From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3664" "Saturday" "20" "February" "1999" "10:00:41" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "77" "starship-design: Re: Starship Engineering" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3664 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA19404 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19399 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28395 invoked by uid 506); 20 Feb 1999 15:58:01 -0000 Received: from pm3-47.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.247) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 1999 15:58:01 -0000 Message-ID: <36CEDC29.838512F4@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000301be5c16$9fccaf20$0101a8c0@claymore> <36CDBB96.F8175862@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship Engineering Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 10:00:41 -0600 Hi y'all... Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > L. Clayton Parker wrote: > > > It seems that this is one of the things we need in order to build a > > starship. It would increase structural strength while decreasing vehicle > > mass and that has to be a good thing. I assume the ones that have been made > > already were aluminum or aluminum alloy. > > Yes, something like this would be very good. But we couldn't replace > everything with it. SInce it is less dense, it will be a much less > efficient radiation shield than denser metal. Perhaps this material > could be used for internal parts of the ship? > > Kyle R. Mcallister LCP sez a foamed metal has better structural weight per mass unit so implementation can be lighter. KRM sez less density means worse shielding. I say nonmetallic superstrength materials live up to their name, so are structurally preferable to metals in low-mass engineering. Sheilding's a complex issue. Creeping up on C we start dealing with _real hot_ stuff. To expect a linear relation of shielding efficacy with structural material density is oversimplifying. For example, impingent particles are hungry for nuclear interactions, so to portray this as a subset of ionizing radiation is putting too pretty a face on it. Nuclear cross section in barns is a property of the element. This has to do with its presence, not with its physical nor even chemical state. The material's density is very indirectly related to shielding effect for impingent relativistic particles, but I would think foaming a material might actually improve its shielding ability, on the general principle that you'd like high energy breakups tend to happen farther away from the protected wetware, rather than closer. Lead and beryllium have particularly useful shielding properties, which are not related to structural properties. I feel that ice would be a useful material to push in front of your starship. Its shielding properties are not all that great, but you could keep the nose of it painted with heavy metals, to fulfill the objective of having the energetic stuff happen way out there. For the sneaky rays, which get through lots of matter, there's nothing so comforting as having lots of matter between you and their source. You'd like that lots of matter to have lead, and beryllium, and heavy metals, even transuranics if you can find any lying around, and mainly iron because it's cheap, and lots of ice because it's real real cheap. I'm afraid our criteria for minimizing mass in starship design have led to underestimating the crucial significance of mass for shielding, so many of our estimates will need to be rebalanced in the light of realistic shielding concerns. Ice is a structural material, with the added benefit it's full of rocket fuel ( in this case meaning reaction mass that's easy to handle ), and helps shield the nose of your vehicle because it's there. It's available for the cost of the delta-v it takes to collect it, no cost multiplier for being sunk in a gravity well. You can count on it being available in the next system, at the same cost, so if most of the mass of your ship is composed of ice you can rebuild your ship by replacing this expendable. It's just this feeling of comfort you get from flying behind a glacier which makes me favor it, over naked shivering can styles. Shielding is needed fore and aft of a starship, but I like a fusion drive in the jet, and favor primary reactions which produce no neutrons; these factors make the friendly fire less worrisome, so reduce the shielding requirements aft. Anybody else like starships made of ice? Johnny Thunderbird http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2710" "Saturday" "20" "February" "1999" "16:51:45" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "starship-design: Fwd: FW: Faster than light (?)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2710 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29521 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:53:14 -0800 (PST) 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 NAA29510 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id QDLFa19778 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:51:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_919547507_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: starship-design: Fwd: FW: Faster than light (?) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:51:45 EST This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_919547507_boundary Content-ID: <0_919547507@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_919547507_boundary Content-ID: <0_919547507@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: DotarSojat@aol.com Return-path: To: KellySt@aol.com, Shealiak@xs4all.nl Subject: FW: Faster than light (?) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:35:54 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Kelly and Timothy The following was forwarded to me from colleagues at IDA. I forward it to you with no implied endorsement. I was told that Lewis Research Center is offering grants to people with innovative interstellar propulsion ideas. (See the referenced site.) Regards Rex > Subject: FW: faster than light > > Interesting site > > http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-98-208400.htm > > http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ > > "Regarding other faster-than-light possibilities, there have also been > some intriguing experimental effects. Photons have been measured to > tunnel across a photonic band-gap barrier at 1.7 times the speed of light > [37]. Even though the author concludes that information did not > travel faster than light, the results are intriguing. It has been > suggested to conduct similar experiments using matter rather than photons > to > unambiguously test the information transfer rate. In addition, recent > experiments of the rest mass of the electron antineutrino have measured > an imaginary value [55]. Even though this result is attributed to possible > errors, an imaginary mass value could be a signature characteristic of > a tachyon (hypothetical faster-than-light particles). It has been > suggested to revisit this and other similar data to determine if this can > be > credibly interpreted as evidence of tachyons. It was also pointed out that > other experiments have been suggested to search for evidence of > tachyons [56]." > > [37] Chiao, R. Y., Steinberg, A. M., and Kwiat, P. G. (1994) "The Photonic > Tunneling Time and the Superluminal Propagation of Wave Packets," Proc. of > the Adriatico > Workshop on Quantum Interferometry, DeMartini, Denardo, and > Zeilinger, eds., World Scientific, Singapore, p. 258. > > [55] Stoeffl, W. and Decman D. J. (1995) "Anomalous Structure in the Beta > Decay of Gaseous Molecular Tritium," Physical Review Letters, > 75:3237-3240. > > [56] Chiao, R. Y., Kozhekin, A. E., and Kurizki G. (1996) "Tachyonlike > Excitations in Inverted Two-Level Media," Phys. Rev. Lett. 77:1254 --part0_919547507_boundary-- From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1678" "Saturday" "20" "February" "1999" "16:51:27" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: more assorted musings" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1678 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA29385 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:52:23 -0800 (PST) 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 NAA29379 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 7BIVa03214 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:51:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <823815f.36cf2e5f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: more assorted musings Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:51:27 EST KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> >==stupidy is not limited to one country or ideology. The >> > USA may have the biggest space program, but why has >> > it taken so long for cheap access into space with >> > $1000 per lb payloads. >> >> None of the potential builders has been able to identify >> a customer for it, >> but it looks like thats changing. > >Yeah. Know what? The NASA doesn't want to put a >Canadian satellite on orbit 'cause the CIA or FBI say it's >too powerful!!!! Not knowing which sat your talking about I can't be specific. In general NASA no longer launches comercial cargo. Your comment about the CIA or FBI are a bit vaugue. FBI has no interest in Sats, but the CIA and NRO have a big issue with the new high res comercial recon stats. Specifically they comercially sell sat photots as good as all but the best inteligence spy sats. Hence all teh customers can buy spy sat service comercially. US companies and launch service can't launch or sell such systems by law. >(Anyway, why haven't the canadians launched it by >Ariane: it's the one with the best history and it's >cheaper...) >Looks like if they didn't reject customers, they'd have >more customers, right?? Wrong. Oh they might get a couple here or there, but that doesn't relate to our origional topic. Why no ones developing fleets of new low cost launchers. Why didn't they go to Ariane? Or why arn't other firms trying to go to them? NASA is not a launcher service. They don't do comercial work, or at least never do it acording to commercial premises. Fleets of new launches, will need major customers. Not occasional launches by a government research agency. Kelly From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["327" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "16:24:35" "-0600" "Gene Marlin" "rmarlin@network-one.com" nil "6" "starship-design: high-velocity interstellar medium collisions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 327 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA15477 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun2.network-one.com (sun2.network-one.com [209.149.88.20]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15460 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from premio (fmodem206.network-one.com [209.149.90.70]) by sun2.network-one.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA1A37 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:31:29 -0600 Message-ID: <000a01be5de8$f6b670e0$465a95d1@premio> 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Gene Marlin" From: "Gene Marlin" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: high-velocity interstellar medium collisions Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:24:35 -0600 Could somebody point to an archive or website that discusses energy loss and craft damages that is incurred by collisions with particles in the interstellar medium? I am also interested in the the 'star bridge' concept. The only resource I have on this is _The Millennial Project_ by Savage. Does anyone have any suggestions? From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["81" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "16:51:15" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "2" "starship-design: Re: sheilding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 81 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07675 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:47:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA07667 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA27208 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:47:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36D09BF2.13D6F22@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000301be5c16$9fccaf20$0101a8c0@claymore> <36CDBB96.F8175862@sunherald.infi.net> <36CEDC29.838512F4@nternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Re: sheilding Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:51:15 -0700 Most shelding will be mass for the reactors in the front of the space craft. ben From VM Sun Feb 21 17:08:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1988" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "17:58:37" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "57" "starship-design: FTL and other drives." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1988 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25100 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25094 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29853 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:55:07 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36D0ABBD.7767F1FC@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: FTL and other drives. Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:58:37 -0700 > "Regarding other faster-than-light possibilities, there have also been > some intriguing experimental effects. Photons have been measured to > tunnel across a photonic band-gap barrier at 1.7 times the speed of light > [37]. Even though the author concludes that information did not > travel faster than light, the results are intriguing. It has been > suggested to conduct similar experiments using matter rather than photons > to > unambiguously test the information transfer rate. In addition, recent > experiments of the rest mass of the electron antineutrino have measured > an imaginary value [55]. Even though this result is attributed to possible > errors, an imaginary mass value could be a signature characteristic of > a tachyon (hypothetical faster-than-light particles). It has been > suggested to revisit this and other similar data to determine if this can > be > credibly interpreted as evidence of tachyons. It was also pointed out that > other experiments have been suggested to search for evidence of > tachyons [56]." As a belever in Autodynamics, I find the first half of this belivable with the last half senseless. ( Read No time travel ). To sum up the designs here for travel to the stars -- say 10 light years. a) Worm hole travel instant but requires gate ways at each end. b) FTL travel 2 to 5 x speed of light. have to drop out of warp to navigate and or to prevent heat build up. c) Time warp low speed travel with a time warp bubble to slow down aging with for long travel times. 1/4C with time warp to give 1 to 2x C d) Fussion reactor 3/4 to 1/10C e) Fussion reactor with basard ramjet 3/4 to 1/10C f) fussion reactor with hybernation 1/10C to 1/200C g) Fussion reactor with basard ramjet with hybernation 1/10C to 1/200C h) fussion reactor or fission reactor or basard ramjet or other. multi generation ship with hybernation 1/50C to 1/1000C Ben. From VM Sun Feb 21 17:38:35 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2371" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "19:32:30" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "57" "starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2371 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA05031 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:35:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA05026 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18224 invoked by uid 506); 22 Feb 1999 01:29:24 -0000 Received: from pm3-11.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.211) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 1999 01:29:24 -0000 Message-ID: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:32:30 -0600 Greetings, I want to make sure my naive conception of special relativity is hunkey-dory with a more intensive understanding, with regard to reaction mass. Your ship has a comfortable supply of reaction mass, and adequate energy reserves. You determine your reaction mass will be optimally used if it is fully ionized, and accelerated into the relativistic realm of velocities with a linear accelerator you have handy on board. ( The electrons are no problem, for they are boosted to relativistic velocities quite easily with electrostatics. ) In the coordinate frame of the ship, still dawdling within the Newtonian velocity space, your linac is boosting the particles which comprise your reaction mass into the relativistic velocity realm. These particles approach the asymptotic limit C; as they do, the energy increment you must supply to produce further acceleration grows exponentially. Your labor is not unrewarded, for the "extra" energy ( departure from linear Newtonian term ) you have placed into accelerating these stubborn particles, shows up as an increase of their mass. Your inertial transfer is a function of their new equivalent mass, not of their rest mass. In short, your overall reaction engine is boosted by the multiplier amounting to the relativistic increase in mass you impart to your ejecta. The net effect of this consideration, is to reduce the amount of reaction mass required for a given acceleration. ( Strictly, you traded it for energy, but we can assume ample energy, for the intro paragraph says so! ) The big worry is whether enough reaction mass is available, which is in short supply in fairly empty space. There are tricks to come up with energy, it's fairly portable compared to fuel. Do you feel this logic holds, with respect to the inertial exchange of the reaction engine receiving the benefits of the relativistic mass boost? Conservation is preserved on the mass-energy product, which makes it seem likely to me. Is not the corollary, that a relativistic jet becomes an optimization of the reaction engine, and for really fast ships we should be thinking in terms of high flux particle accelerators in every case, to reduce the amount of reaction mass required for the jet in Newtonian mode? Just trying to clear my thoughts on this topic. Cheers, Johnny Thunderbird http://www.geocities.com/~jthunderbird/drive.html From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:14 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["367" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "22:20:30" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: Re: sheilding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 367 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA01124 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:21:29 -0800 (PST) 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 TAA01084 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id IOEMa19778 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:20:30 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <6f93f87e.36d0ccfe@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: sheilding Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:20:30 EST > Most shelding will be mass for the reactors in the > front of the space craft. > ben The reactors should not need much sheilding, but the HUGE quantities of reactor fuel could easily serve as shielding for the crew quarters. If you notice the diagrams I put in the web site, the ship looked like a little tug on the back of this huge block of fusino fuel. Kelly From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:14 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["611" "Sunday" "21" "February" "1999" "21:55:15" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 611 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09058 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA09033 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p425.gnt.com [204.49.91.233]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA12365 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:00:02 -0600 Message-ID: <001501be5e17$276ebca0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6f93f87e.36d0ccfe@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:55:15 -0600 > > Most shielding will be mass for the reactors in the > > front of the space craft. > > ben > > The reactors should not need much shielding, but the HUGE quantities of > reactor fuel could easily serve as shielding for the crew quarters. > If you notice the diagrams I put in the web site, the ship looked like a > little tug on the back of this huge block of fusion fuel. I remember someone bringing this up before, but I don't remember a response...what do you use for shielding after you spin to decelerate? Now the only thing between you and all those relativistic particles is the engine... Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:14 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3443" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "16:52:51" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3443 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17208 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA17193 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne11p13.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.205]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA11478 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:02:53 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <004e01be5e30$d7603440$cdeb6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:52:51 +1000 Hi SSD, Johnny, in a word, yes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Johnny Thunderbird To: starship-design Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 11:32 AM Subject: starship-design: Genuine STR question >Greetings, > >I want to make sure my naive conception of >special relativity is hunkey-dory with a more >intensive understanding, with regard to reaction >mass. > >Your ship has a comfortable supply of reaction >mass, and adequate energy reserves. You determine >your reaction mass will be optimally used if it is >fully ionized, and accelerated into the relativistic >realm of velocities with a linear accelerator you >have handy on board. ( The electrons are no >problem, for they are boosted to relativistic >velocities quite easily with electrostatics. ) > >In the coordinate frame of the ship, still dawdling >within the Newtonian velocity space, your linac >is boosting the particles which comprise your >reaction mass into the relativistic velocity realm. >These particles approach the asymptotic limit C; >as they do, the energy increment you must supply >to produce further acceleration grows exponentially. > >Your labor is not unrewarded, for the "extra" energy >( departure from linear Newtonian term ) you have >placed into accelerating these stubborn particles, >shows up as an increase of their mass. Your inertial >transfer is a function of their new equivalent mass, >not of their rest mass. In short, your overall reaction >engine is boosted by the multiplier amounting to the >relativistic increase in mass you impart to your ejecta. > >The net effect of this consideration, is to reduce the >amount of reaction mass required for a given acceleration. >( Strictly, you traded it for energy, but we can assume >ample energy, for the intro paragraph says so! ) The >big worry is whether enough reaction mass is available, >which is in short supply in fairly empty space. There are >tricks to come up with energy, it's fairly portable >compared to fuel. > >Do you feel this logic holds, with respect to the inertial >exchange of the reaction engine receiving the benefits of >the relativistic mass boost? Conservation is preserved on >the mass-energy product, which makes it seem likely to >me. Is not the corollary, that a relativistic jet becomes an >optimization of the reaction engine, and for really fast >ships we should be thinking in terms of high flux particle >accelerators in every case, to reduce the amount of >reaction mass required for the jet in Newtonian mode? > >Just trying to clear my thoughts on this topic. > >Cheers, >Johnny Thunderbird >http://www.geocities.com/~jthunderbird/drive.html > > The real problem for relativistic starships is the energy of the reactions powering them, and the systems handling those energies can only handle so much... As power requirements [and jet-speed] go up, the possible thrust goes down. Realistic fusion rockets would run at very low thrust levels, unless they used fusion pulse drives, because of the extreme power levels involved. A small percentage heat-loss at the thousand terawatt level would easily vaporise the engine, hence why you don't run that high. Reactions that involve "combustion" away from the drive, confined by fields, are the highest thrust systems - pulse drives being the most studied. Personally I think truly advanced spacedrives would involve beamed power or mass-beams. Adam From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:14 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2229" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "17:16:32" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: high-velocity interstellar medium collisions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2229 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA20665 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA20657 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne11p13.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.205]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA21272; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:21:05 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <006101be5e33$609b8320$cdeb6ccb@default> 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 5.00.0810.800 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Gene Marlin" , "Starship-Design" Subject: Re: starship-design: high-velocity interstellar medium collisions Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:16:32 +1000 Hi SSD, ----- Original Message ----- From: Gene Marlin To: Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 8:24 AM Subject: starship-design: high-velocity interstellar medium collisions > >Could somebody point to an archive or website that discusses energy loss and >craft damages that is incurred by collisions with particles in the >interstellar medium? That's not too hard to figure out yourself if you can find a reference on the amount of dust and matter that exist out in the Galaxy. The rough calculation for the amount of energy received/second.. assume inelastic collisions [highly likely at near-light since the particles are crashing into you] so all energy of incoming particles is dissapated. P [Energy per second] = 0.5*p*A*v^3 i.e.half the mass density of interstellar matter [p] times the cross-sectional area of the star-ship [A] times the cube of the velocity [v] Why the velocity cubed? Because in each unit time your ship sweeps up the volume of your area times the distance travelled in that time. As for direct damage it's roughly severe radiation damage, which varies for the material you're using as a shield. Basically it's a hail of cosmic rays, which is best blocked by metres of ice, which has the added advantage of dissipating impact energies from dust efficiently. The ultimate shield would be either a plasma shield or a gravity shield, or both. But ice does quite well, especially if it can used for fuel/mass along the way. I am also interested in the the 'star bridge' concept. >The only resource I have on this is _The Millennial Project_ by Savage. Does >anyone have any suggestions? > Savage stuffs his figures up. He imagines that a "1000 AU" accelerator can boost you to near-light, so that trips last subjective days. You can do it if you can stand multi-thousand gee accelerations!!! The Relativistic time distortion factor goes up by 1 every light year you accelerate at a gee. A light-year is 63,000 AU, so a 1000 AU at a gee is a miniscule increase in time-distortion factor. At 1000 g it gives you a TDF of about 15, so the higher acceleration the better. Just how you stop becoming strawberry jam is another matter... Adam > From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1321" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "07:43:47" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 GAA11565 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 06:31:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA11557 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 06:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4771 invoked by uid 506); 22 Feb 1999 13:41:32 -0000 Received: from pm3-18.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.218) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 1999 13:41:32 -0000 Message-ID: <36D15F13.BE230A15@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001501be5e17$276ebca0$0101a8c0@claymore> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Clayton Parker" CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: shielding Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 07:43:47 -0600 L. Clayton Parker wrote: > > > Most shielding will be mass for the reactors in the > > > front of the space craft. > > > ben > > > > The reactors should not need much shielding, but the HUGE quantities of > > reactor fuel could easily serve as shielding for the crew quarters. > > If you notice the diagrams I put in the web site, the ship looked like a > > little tug on the back of this huge block of fusion fuel. > > I remember someone bringing this up before, but I don't remember a > response...what do you use for shielding after you spin to decelerate? Now > the only thing between you and all those relativistic particles is the > engine... > > Lee Parker The engine's probably good shielding, but the jet itself is even better. A plasma is opaque ( and reflective ) to much of the electromagnetic spectrum, so it takes a pretty hairy photon to get through. As far as particle irradiation, well, the jet is comprised of lots of mass going thataway in a hellacious hurry. ( If I have my way, it will be made of all relativistic particles, q.v. Genuine STR Question today. ) A particle coming thisaway will have a tough row to hoe, to swim upstream through all that. I'm not saying there's no problem, I'm just mentioning these factors so you won't feel so naked. Johnny Thunderbird http://fly.to/heavyLight From VM Mon Feb 22 10:01:15 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3675" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "10:40:56" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "72" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3675 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA19149 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19137 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:45:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11325 invoked by uid 506); 22 Feb 1999 16:38:39 -0000 Received: from pm3-24.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.224) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 1999 16:38:39 -0000 Message-ID: <36D18898.A3072572@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <004e01be5e30$d7603440$cdeb6ccb@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: AJ & AJ Crowl CC: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:40:56 -0600 AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > Hi SSD, > > Johnny, in a word, yes. > <....> > The real problem for relativistic starships is the energy of the reactions > powering them, and the systems handling those energies can only handle so > much... As power requirements [and jet-speed] go up, the possible thrust > goes down. Realistic fusion rockets would run at very low thrust levels, > unless they used fusion pulse drives, because of the extreme power levels > involved. A small percentage heat-loss at the thousand terawatt level would > easily vaporise the engine, hence why you don't run that high. Reactions > that involve "combustion" away from the drive, confined by fields, are the > highest thrust systems - pulse drives being the most studied. > > Personally I think truly advanced spacedrives would involve beamed power or > mass-beams. > > Adam I'm in agreement with all your statements, with a couple caveats for some of my pet notions. Let's be aware that some of the parts of a drive system can be decoupled for our convenience: the energy producing reactions do not necessarily have to happen exactly where the energy is used, etc. I may choose to stick a continuous fusion reaction out in front of the ship, for example, just to help with the shielding against impingent cosmic rays and gamma rays! This design might be "fusion powered" but not fusion driven, if the mechanism of how the reaction mass is propelled rearward actually involves linacs, as I was proposing. Ships may be designed to have two hot zones, one where the energy is produced, and another where the energy is used to produce thrust. I'm not necessarily advocating that an energy producing fusion be decoupled from direct contact with the drive mechanism, just pointing out we mustn't oversimplify. Thank for the backup on the relativistic mass enhancement of the jet. If this holds up, it implies that every feasible star drive system must use linacs to throw their jet, for every gram of reaction mass that leaves the ship at less than relativistic velocity is "wasted" by not going through the linac to get its mass boosted. The linac would make that gram into a dozen grams, or a hundred grams, or a kilo. If it flies back at 0.7 C or 0.8 C it's just a gram, so to us it means a leak, but if it flies at 0.99 C it's a bunch of grams, and saves us from having to carry that much reaction mass. This means a strictly thermal mechanism can never compete with the accelerator to drive the jet. However you get the energy to drive your starship ( fusion, beamed power, antimatter ), your ship must be dozens of times heavier with reaction mass, if you don't feed every particle of that reaction mass through the linac so its mass gets multiplied. Ship designs which require dozens of times more fuel than others will not get built. So we need to quietly shelve all the plans which would give a blackbody thermal spectrum to the jet, which includes all simple heat engines however they're powered. Heat engine exhaust is speedy but not relativistic, so it's all "wasted" by the above criterion. I'm using the term "heat engine" to refer to the mechanism by which the energy is applied to push the reaction mass away, inclusive of fusion and anti-matter production of energy and every other means. If the exhaust has a thermal spectrum, or any other spectrum other than purely relativistic particles, it isn't good enough. I too, by the way, favor beams to deliver power, and conceivably reaction mass, to starships en route. The interstellar transport problem has a high order of difficulty, so every feasible approach must be considered. Johnny Thunderbird http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage From VM Mon Feb 22 10:21:27 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2829" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "11:12:14" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: FTL and other drives." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2829 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29370 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29325 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin41.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.41]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22058 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:08:37 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36D19DFE.17DFE590@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <61bdc880.36d0cd05@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and other drives. Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:12:14 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > As to your list > > > a) Worm hole travel > > instant but requires gate ways at each end. > > No one has a clue about this. No near term possibility. Ok scratch this one. > > b) FTL travel > > 2 to 5 x speed of light. > > have to drop out of warp to navigate and or > > to prevent heat build up. > > We have very rough theories about FTL. NOne of your details are even hinted > in them. I have not read any ftl theories but they seem resonable limits,since they are out side out universe you can't go far with out getting lost or stressing you engines. More theory needed. > > > c) Time warp > > low speed travel with a time warp bubble > > to slow down aging with for long travel times. > > 1/4C with time warp to give 1 to 2x C > > No theory of this. True. > > d) Fussion reactor > > 3/4 to 1/10C > > I think I pulled about ever trick you could with fussion. NO way your geting > to .75 unless you have STAGERING fuel ratios. .2 needs fuel reserves tens to > a hundred times that of the unfuel ship. (To get to .4 C I added external > fueling or microwave sail. Ok, My ball park figure was off. Does 1/3C to 1/12C sound right for ball park figures. For 5 light years, 15 to 60 years oneway. > > e) Fussion reactor with > > basard ramjet 3/4 to 1/10C > > Looks like ramjets would be hard pressed to scoop up there own weight in > material over the time of a flight. True but that is not to scrap the idea just yet. A say 1/4C to 1/12C for round figures. > > f) fussion reactor with > > hybernation 1/10C to 1/200C > > > > g) Fussion reactor with > > basard ramjet with > > hybernation > > 1/10C to 1/200C > > We havent a clue of how to do hibernation, and if your stupid enough to launch > a flight at 1/200th light speed you deserve all the ridicule your desendants > will receave in 900 years when you get to Alpha Centari. Lets face it, they > won't be the first earth ship there by a few centuries at least! Hybernation where you turn into a block of ice is out for shure, but chipmunks do it all the time and now that the cause of cell death is known genenic modifycation could do it for a the crew. A faster ship may not be practical like any of the designs discused here. Ok then 1/12C to 1/30C 60 to 150 years. > > h) fussion reactor or > > fission reactor or > > basard ramjet or > > other. multi generation > > ship with hybernation > > 1/50C to 1/1000C > > 4500 years to Alpha C!! Are you nuts! Anything greater than 1/30C. Mass evacuation when the sun goes nova. ( ok the sun will not go nova but sounds good). > Kelly All the designs here can be worked on because while not practical at this time several good ideas may be in a project that is not possable. Ben. From VM Mon Feb 22 12:03:54 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2915" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "11:54:25" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2915 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28205 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:54:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28041 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09503 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23948; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:54:26 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14033.46577.595308.241585@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36D18898.A3072572@nternet.com> References: <004e01be5e30$d7603440$cdeb6ccb@default> <36D18898.A3072572@nternet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:54:25 -0800 (PST) Johnny Thunderbird writes: > Thank for the backup on the relativistic mass enhancement of the jet. > If this holds up, it implies that every feasible star drive system must use > linacs to throw their jet, for every gram of reaction mass that leaves the > ship at less than relativistic velocity is "wasted" by not going through the > linac to get its mass boosted. The linac would make that gram into a > dozen grams, or a hundred grams, or a kilo. If it flies back at 0.7 C or > 0.8 C it's just a gram, so to us it means a leak, but if it flies at 0.99 C > it's a bunch of grams, and saves us from having to carry that much > reaction mass. To a certain extent this is right; I would say this as a higher exhaust velocity means a higher momentum-to-energy ratio, meaning you're getting more velocity for the amount of energy expended. Unfortunately you can't get a momentum-to-energy ratio greater than 1 if you're counting both the energy obtained from burning fuel and the energy equivalent of the reaction mass. Only if you can convert your fuel completely to photons can you get the ideal maximum momentum-to-energy ratio of 1, and consequently get the most velocity for a given amount of beamed power. Some of this was discussed a long time ago in the LIT starship-design newsletter; Timothy van der Linden has archived a posting where I derived this result at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jvdl/sdnewsletters/39-62/engineer-1.txt Search for the subject header "What's the best reaction mass?" Note that my derivation was based on the idea of a self-fueled ship. If you beam power to the ship things can be quite different; Timothy managed to convince me that if you beam power to the ship and use it to accelerate reaction mass it can be better to carry lots of reaction mass that you expel at lower velocity, and thereby use less beamed power to get the payload to the same velocity. Overall I found your discussion to have some possibly problematic confusion regarding the notion of "relativistic mass increase", which turns up over and over in physics texts but which I was taught is something of a misnomer. Older physics texts go a little too far with the notion of mass-energy equivalence, and give the false impression that accelerating something makes it heavier, while more modern texts define mass as a relativistically invariant quantity, so that the proper distinction is made that accelerating an object preserves its mass, but increases its momentum and energy in the relation m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (m = mass, E = energy, p = magnitude of momentum). Or, approximately, older texts called E "relativistic mass" and tried to preserve the Newtonian p = mv by claiming that m increased with v. I suppose I should plug Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_ again, but I already have within the past month or so. I can send you the detailed bibliographic information if you want. From VM Mon Feb 22 13:03:21 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["668" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "21:52:15" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: Beamed power" "^From:" nil nil "2" 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 MAA29372 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29326 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-modem1206.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.182]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA19766 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:52:11 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990222215215.006dcd84@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <004e01be5e30$d7603440$cdeb6ccb@default> 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: Beamed power Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:52:15 +0100 Adam suggested: >Personally I think truly advanced spacedrives would involve beamed power or >mass-beams. In the past, we've discussed beamed power to great length. I made a kind of summary of that. The old members must have read it once or twice, but since there are several new members, I'd like to give the URL once more: http://www.xs4all.nl/~shealiak/sd/beaming/beam.html I haven't updated it since a while, but I think it is a good starter for anyone thinking about beaming energy. Note the summary is not about beaming matter! I'm not sure if I will have time to answer or reply any comments about it, since I'm a bit busy with other things lately. Timothy From VM Mon Feb 22 13:59:53 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1911" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "15:13:18" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1911 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA12671 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA12604 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:17:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-63.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.63]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06429 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:16:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D1E48E.D3A61698@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:13:18 -0800 Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > These particles approach the asymptotic limit C; > as they do, the energy increment you must supply > to produce further acceleration grows exponentially. Correct. > Your labor is not unrewarded, for the "extra" energy > ( departure from linear Newtonian term ) you have > placed into accelerating these stubborn particles, > shows up as an increase of their mass. Not in _your_ reference frame. In the reference frame of an observer moving WRT you, or vice versa. In your reference frame, all of your particles are exactly the same. Note: 'mass' doesn't increase per se when you approach C...rather it is your kinetic energy that goes to infinity. Think of it as a resistance to further acceleration. > Your inertial > transfer is a function of their new equivalent mass, > not of their rest mass. In short, your overall reaction > engine is boosted by the multiplier amounting to the > relativistic increase in mass you impart to your ejecta. It doesn't work that way. I won't get into the mathematical proofs, but it is shown in several books that you simply cannot get either: 1. enough mass, or 2. the mass to 'increase' enough, to accelerate you to C and beyond. It can't be done with a normal engine. If you have a different type of engine, say, one that zeroes your inertia or mass, then maybe. But not like this. Relativity, despite what some say, is not easy to understand or learn. You will do what I did at first: look at it and say: huh? You'll also have a tendancy to say that the observers on earth are somehow more privileged than those on the ship, but it is not so. It doesn't really make sense at first. To me, it still seems inadequate, so I am waiting for a theory of quantum gravity to be found. Or something like it. But stick with it, ask people questions if you don't understand something. No question, if honest, is ever stupid. Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Feb 22 14:14:57 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6723" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "07:59:11" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "137" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6723 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11508 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11387 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (slbne1p52.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.116]) by fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA07081; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:10:18 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <007601be5eaf$9ad52420$74fa6ccb@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "AJ & AJ Crowl" From: "AJ & AJ Crowl" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Johnny Thunderbird" Cc: "starship-design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 07:59:11 +1000 Hi Johnny & SSD, Linacs have certain constraints which I'll discuss. To achieve significant velocities they really need beamed power. You probably already propose such a system, but here's my discussion. ----- Original Message ----- From: Johnny Thunderbird To: AJ & AJ Crowl Cc: starship-design Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 2:40 AM Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question > > >AJ & AJ Crowl wrote: > >> Hi SSD, >> >> Johnny, in a word, yes. >> <....> >> The real problem for relativistic starships is the energy of the reactions >> powering them, and the systems handling those energies can only handle so >> much... As power requirements [and jet-speed] go up, the possible thrust >> goes down. Realistic fusion rockets would run at very low thrust levels, >> unless they used fusion pulse drives, because of the extreme power levels >> involved. A small percentage heat-loss at the thousand terawatt level would >> easily vaporise the engine, hence why you don't run that high. Reactions >> that involve "combustion" away from the drive, confined by fields, are the >> highest thrust systems - pulse drives being the most studied. >> >> Personally I think truly advanced spacedrives would involve beamed power or >> mass-beams. >> >> Adam > >I'm in agreement with all your statements, with a couple caveats for some >of my pet notions. Let's be aware that some of the parts of a drive system >can be decoupled for our convenience: the energy producing reactions do >not necessarily have to happen exactly where the energy is used, etc. > In which case you have the problem of handling the power transfer. How? We're talking about multi-terawatt power levels and that sort of power couldn't be handled by any known cabling. Plasma conduits maybe? >I may choose to stick a continuous fusion reaction out in front of the ship, >for example, just to help with the shielding against impingent cosmic rays >and gamma rays! This design might be "fusion powered" but not fusion >driven, if the mechanism of how the reaction mass is propelled rearward >actually involves linacs, as I was proposing. Ships may be designed to >have two hot zones, one where the energy is produced, and another where >the energy is used to produce thrust. I'm not necessarily advocating that >an energy producing fusion be decoupled from direct contact with the >drive mechanism, just pointing out we mustn't oversimplify. > Good point, but perhaps impractical. >Thank for the backup on the relativistic mass enhancement of the jet. >If this holds up, it implies that every feasible star drive system must use >linacs to throw their jet, for every gram of reaction mass that leaves the >ship at less than relativistic velocity is "wasted" by not going through the >linac to get its mass boosted. The linac would make that gram into a >dozen grams, or a hundred grams, or a kilo. If it flies back at 0.7 C or >0.8 C it's just a gram, so to us it means a leak, but if it flies at 0.99 C >it's a bunch of grams, and saves us from having to carry that much >reaction mass. > >This means a strictly thermal mechanism can never compete with the >accelerator to drive the jet. However you get the energy to drive your >starship ( fusion, beamed power, antimatter ), your ship must be dozens >of times heavier with reaction mass, if you don't feed every particle of >that reaction mass through the linac so its mass gets multiplied. The most glaring problem is : How do you power your LINAC? Some sort of reactor which will, perhaps, use some sort of heat engine to transfer energy from the reaction to the power system. I suppose is we got really smart we could use a Bussard Fusor which converted most of its reaction energy to electrical power [cabling problem again] to power the LINAC, but even with very high efficiency conversion there will be heat loses and we'll need to dump waste helium, which at substantially high power levels will be a pretty respectable jet itself. At most the energy we can transfer from reactor to LINAC exhaust is directly related to the mass fraction of energy liberated in our power reaction. We can use way more reactor fuel to beef up the beam energy but then thrust from the reactor exhaust would be MUCH higher than from the LINAC beam. You can probably see that only beamed power really makes sense when using a LINAC to achieve close to c velocities. Then the advantages are high for being propelled by an ultrarelativistic beam. Ship >designs which require dozens of times more fuel than others will not get >built. So we need to quietly shelve all the plans which would give a >blackbody thermal spectrum to the jet, which includes all simple heat >engines however they're powered. Heat engine exhaust is speedy but >not relativistic, so it's all "wasted" by the above criterion. I'm using the >term "heat engine" to refer to the mechanism by which the energy is >applied to push the reaction mass away, inclusive of fusion and anti-matter >production of energy and every other means. If the exhaust has a thermal >spectrum, or any other spectrum other than purely relativistic particles, >it isn't good enough. > All true. and ditto for the power source. >I too, by the way, favor beams to deliver power, and conceivably reaction >mass, to starships en route. The interstellar transport problem has a high >order of difficulty, so every feasible approach must be considered. > I think the ultimate sub-light drive system [not involving weird gauge field reactions that I've speculated on] would be a network of "starbases" across the Galaxy that push starships around via mass-beams. Nano-probes could be launched at near c , powered by convential systems, to arrive at one's destination to set up a deccelerator. Ultimately it would have an expansion rate of between 1/3 and 1/2c, and the Galaxy could be networked in a few hundred thousand years. Very high TDFs could be achieved if acceleration effects could be minimised by "inertial dampers" or some other system, even immersion in oxygenated flurocarbons if we were desparate. Perhaps at some stage after the wave is spreading they'll develop worm-hole stargates, which will then spread out just a bit slower than c on the network. So some time hundreds of kiloyears from now an Empire could be set-up, linked by stargates... kind of makes me wonder if it hasn't already been done. Do we have a stargate waiting in near-space? Perhaps guardian systems have been set-up to shoo visitors away from a developing species of sophonts, still too primitive to detect the space-time distortion drifting around in their inner comet cloud. Adam From VM Mon Feb 22 14:32:31 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1707" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "14:29:36" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1707 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21774 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21761 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA18855 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24648; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:29:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14033.55888.214362.631582@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36D1E48E.D3A61698@sunherald.infi.net> References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D1E48E.D3A61698@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:29:36 -0800 (PST) Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > Relativity, despite what some say, is not easy to understand or learn. > You will do what I did at first: look at it and say: huh? You'll also > have a tendancy to say that the observers on earth are somehow more > privileged than those on the ship, but it is not so. It doesn't really > make sense at first. The biggest stumbling blocks for beginners seem to be: Spacetime (as opposed to Newtonian space) is not Euclidean, although for everyday life Euclidean geometry is a near-perfect approximation. Simultaneity is a completely relative concept. There is only one reference frame in which two events can be simultaneous. This turns out to be the resolution to a great many relativistic "paradoxes". Other than that, special relativity isn't hard to learn, in that the math isn't hard and a lot of other Newtonian concepts like conservation of momentum or conservation of mass remain true. I see the difficulty as not in the structure of special relativity theory, but in overcoming some pervasive assumptions. > To me, it still seems inadequate, so I am waiting > for a theory of quantum gravity to be found. Or something like it. But > stick with it, ask people questions if you don't understand something. > No question, if honest, is ever stupid. General relativity seems to hold some promise for FTL loopholes, but even the ones that have been well-postulated are awfully difficult to exploit (i.e. building an infinitely long ultradense rotating cylinder or creating a region of negative energy density are not exactly seen to be feasible). There's no way to tell whether a theory of quantum gravity will close or widen those potential loopholes. From VM Tue Feb 23 08:46:50 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1461" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "21:38:05" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1461 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08140 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA08132 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-64.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.64]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA31334 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:41:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36D23EBD.F7E7C04F@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D1E48E.D3A61698@sunherald.infi.net> <14033.55888.214362.631582@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:38:05 -0800 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Simultaneity is a completely relative concept. There is only one > reference frame in which two events can be simultaneous. This > turns out to be the resolution to a great many relativistic > "paradoxes". Exactly. This was my biggest problem, as you know. Getting used to the concept of relative simultaniety was not easy. > Other than that, special relativity isn't hard to learn, in that > the math isn't hard and a lot of other Newtonian concepts like > conservation of momentum or conservation of mass remain true. I > see the difficulty as not in the structure of special relativity > theory, but in overcoming some pervasive assumptions. Yes, the math is very simple. But the logical parts of it are hard to accept until you really get a 'feel' for the theory. In fact, relativity is quite beautiful when you get to know it better. > General relativity seems to hold some promise for FTL loopholes, > but even the ones that have been well-postulated are awfully > difficult to exploit (i.e. building an infinitely long ultradense > rotating cylinder or creating a region of negative energy density > are not exactly seen to be feasible). There's no way to tell > whether a theory of quantum gravity will close or widen those > potential loopholes. True. We just don't really know the possibilities yet. It may be possible to distort space using some kind of field, rather than matter. Who knows? Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Feb 23 12:34:56 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["604" "Monday" "22" "February" "1999" "22:10:59" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "18" "starship-design: mass" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 604 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05925 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:29:23 -0800 (PST) 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 MAA05875 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:29:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-modem2860.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.139.44]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA21378 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:29:13 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990222221059.0068bb44@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <14033.46577.595308.241585@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: <36D18898.A3072572@nternet.com> <004e01be5e30$d7603440$cdeb6ccb@default> <36D18898.A3072572@nternet.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: mass Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:10:59 +0100 Steve wrote to "Johnny Thunderbird": >Overall I found your discussion to have some possibly problematic >confusion regarding the notion of "relativistic mass increase", >which turns up over and over in physics texts but which I was >taught is something of a misnomer. A direct and succinct article about mass and "relativistic" mass can be found in: Physics Today, June 1989, "The Concept of Mass" by L.B. Okun. If someone is really interested and can't get it in their library, I'll scan it in and hang it onto my web page for a while. (Steve, I think you might like the article as well.) Timothy From VM Tue Feb 23 16:08:56 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["713" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "18:42:40" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 713 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28806 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:05:34 -0800 (PST) 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 QAA28776 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id UNAAa19778 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:42:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <37d8d376.36d33cf0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: shielding Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:42:40 EST > > Most shielding will be mass for the reactors in the > > front of the space craft. > > ben > > The reactors should not need much shielding, but the HUGE quantities of > reactor fuel could easily serve as shielding for the crew quarters. > If you notice the diagrams I put in the web site, the ship looked like a > little tug on the back of this huge block of fusion fuel. I remember someone bringing this up before, but I don't remember a response...what do you use for shielding after you spin to decelerate? Now the only thing between you and all those relativistic particles is the engine... Lee Parker Don't spin the ship, just move the engines to the frount of the block of fuel. Kelly From VM Tue Feb 23 16:16:57 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2912" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "18:43:16" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "91" "Re: Re: starship-design: FTL and other drives." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2912 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01464 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:12:31 -0800 (PST) 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 QAA01392 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:12:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id VGKFa04340 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:43:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5af15d75.36d33d14@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: FTL and other drives. Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:43:16 EST From: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >====== > > b) FTL travel > > 2 to 5 x speed of light. > > have to drop out of warp to navigate and or > > to prevent heat build up. > > We have very rough theories about FTL. NOne of your details are even hinted > in them. > > I have not read any ftl theories but they seem resonable > limits,since they are out side out universe you can't go > far with out getting lost or stressing you engines. More > theory needed. It sounds plausible, but its just as likely to be silly. Maybe FTL doesn't involve leaving the universe, or perhaps all the drive stress is in starting and stoping, and cruseing the engines are off. >==== >> > d) Fussion reactor >> > 3/4 to 1/10C >> >> I think I pulled about every trick you could with fussion. >>NO way your geting to .75 unless you have STAGERING >>fuel ratios. .2 needs fuel reserves tens to >> a hundred times that of the unfuel ship. (To get to .4 C >>I added external fueling or microwave sail. > Ok, My ball park figure was off. Does 1/3C to 1/12C > sound right for ball park figures. For 5 light years, > 15 to 60 years oneway. Better, thou you need a faster ship to make going worth doing, and a slower ship could be far more difficult and unrelyable then a faster ship. >> > e) Fussion reactor with >> > basard ramjet 3/4 to 1/10C >> >> Looks like ramjets would be hard pressed to scoop up there own weight in >> material over the time of a flight. > > True but that is not to scrap the idea just yet. A say > 1/4C to 1/12C for round figures. I'ld drop ramscoops. We've no idea if they'ld work, or if they'ld produce more thrust then drag. Too little info to suggest a speed. >> > f) fussion reactor with >> > hybernation 1/10C to 1/200C >> > >> > g) Fussion reactor with >> > basard ramjet with >> > hybernation >> > 1/10C to 1/200C >> >> We havent a clue of how to do hibernation, and if your stupid enough to launch >> a flight at 1/200th light speed you deserve all the ridicule your desendants >> will receave in 900 years when you get to Alpha Centari. Lets face it, they >> won't be the first earth ship there by a few centuries at least! > > Hybernation where you turn into a block of ice is out > for shure, but chipmunks do it all the time and now > that the cause of cell death is known genenic > modifycation could do it for a the crew. A faster ship > may not be practical like any of the designs > discused here. Ok then 1/12C to 1/30C 60 to 150 years. Slow ships add so much more complexity and relyability problems, its easier to build a impractical faster ship (add an order of magnitude to the fuel) then make one that can last for decades more. >=== > > Anything greater than 1/30C. Mass evacuation when > the sun goes nova. > ( ok the sun will not go nova but sounds good). ;) >> Kelly > > Ben. Kelly From VM Tue Feb 23 16:16:57 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1010" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "18:43:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1010 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA26127 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) 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 QAA26114 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id OERRa03543 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:43:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <39e01875.36d33d0c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Genuine STR question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:43:08 EST > ==Thank for the backup on the relativistic mass > enhancement of the jet. If this holds up, it implies that > every feasible star drive system must use linacs to > throw their jet, for every gram of reaction mass that > leaves the ship at less than relativistic velocity is > "wasted" by not going through the linac to get its > mass boosted. === One problem with this is the power limits of the fuel. For example teh fusion systems I was discusing used fuels that released all the energy of the reactions into kenetic energy of the exaust products. Thats good, because your radiation and heat problems go away, and you just need to aim the exaust. Since these particals are charged conversion of their momentum to electricity is a snap too. BUT if you convert the exaust energy to electricity and use that electricity to accelerate a smaller mass to a higher speed, your not geting any more efficency. Rather your adding a more complex drive system and dumping most of the fusino exaust. Kelly From VM Tue Feb 23 16:31:39 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["131" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "18:22:30" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 131 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA08576 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA08552 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p298.gnt.com [204.49.91.106]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA22876; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:27:00 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01be5f8b$c436a140$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <37d8d376.36d33cf0@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:22:30 -0600 > > Don't spin the ship, just move the engines to the frount of the > block of fuel. Neat trick, how do you do it? Lee Parker From VM Wed Feb 24 10:08:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["982" "Tuesday" "23" "February" "1999" "18:14:14" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 982 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00714 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00700 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ben (dialin19.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.19]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21940 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:12:50 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199902240112.SAA21940@main.jetnet.ab.ca> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk" From: "Ben Franchuk" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:14:14 -0700 > One problem with this is the power limits of the fuel. For example teh fusion > systems I was discusing used fuels that released all the energy of the > reactions into kenetic energy of the exaust products. Thats good, because > your radiation and heat problems go away, and you just need to aim the exaust. > Since these particals are charged conversion of their momentum to electricity > is a snap too. BUT if you convert the exaust energy to electricity and use > that electricity to accelerate a smaller mass to a higher speed, your not > geting any more efficency. Rather your adding a more complex drive system and > dumping most of the fusino exaust. Not true since only a fraction of the exaust can be used for thrust,by looking at a regular rocket engine. The electric system may be easly reversed for slowing down. ---------- __| | >>>> __ # | |_____| Some ramscoop action can be done as well. Ben. From VM Thu Feb 25 09:53:17 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["447" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "00:15:54" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 447 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03324 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:17:55 -0800 (PST) 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 VAA03307 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LNOAa05357 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:15:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: shielding Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:15:54 EST > I remember someone bringing this up before, but I don't > remember a response...what do you use for shielding > after you spin to decelerate? Now the only thing > between you and all those relativistic particles is the > engine... I responded that you move the engines to the frount of the fuel block, but you don't move the crew quarters or the rest of the ship. That way the ship and crew is always behind the huge block of fuel. Kelly From VM Thu Feb 25 09:53:17 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1109" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "00:16:15" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "51" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1109 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03527 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:18:25 -0800 (PST) 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 VAA03513 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:18:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 7JZAa03214 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:16:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Genuine STR question Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:16:15 EST > One problem with this is the power limits of the fuel. For example teh fusion > systems I was discusing used fuels that released all the energy of the > reactions into kenetic energy of the exaust products. Thats good, because > your radiation and heat problems go away, and you just need to aim the exaust. > Since these particals are charged conversion of their momentum to electricity > is a snap too. BUT if you convert the exaust energy to electricity and use > that electricity to accelerate a smaller mass to a higher speed, your not > geting any more efficency. Rather your adding a more complex drive system and > dumping most of the fusino exaust. Not true since only a fraction of the exaust can be used for thrust,= Not true, all the exaust can be used for thrust if you don't tap any of it off to power something else like the Liniac. >==by looking at a regular rocket engine. The electric system may be easly reversed for slowing down. Only if you make the liniac run through the ship. Not that you need to do reverse thrust on short notice in a starship. Kelly From VM Thu Feb 25 09:53:17 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["381" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "00:16:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 381 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05365 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:22:42 -0800 (PST) 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 VAA05344 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:22:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 1ONPa04340 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:16:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8149881e.36d4dc98@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: shielding Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:16:08 EST > > Don't spin the ship, just move the engines to the frount of the > block of fuel. Neat trick, how do you do it? Lee Parker You detach the drive pack from the back of the ship. Move it around to the frount, and reattach it. The drive pack should also have the equipment to excavate, mix, and feed the fuel into the engines. Think of it as a automated tug. Kelly From VM Thu Feb 25 12:05:22 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1085" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "13:56:10" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1085 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13021 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12972 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p198.gnt.com [204.49.89.198]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA08156; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:01:21 -0600 Message-ID: <000101be60f8$e4179820$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <8149881e.36d4dc98@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: starship-design: Re: shielding Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:56:10 -0600 In other words, we design a modular engine unit which is really a self contained ship with either minimal living quarters, or none at all and control it remotely. We can then design a variety of "mission modules" with standard docking connectors. As the need arises, we can change components for different missions. Hey, I like this idea Kelly! It also solves the intersystem scouting problem. Detach the main habitat into orbit and use the tug to deliver other sensor packages within the system. Without the mass of the main habitat, which is busy building a fueling station right now anyway, the tug could do some serious delta v intersystem. Since it is modular, as technology progresses rather than scrap an entire ship, we just change out tugs. Makes mass production and maintenance easier too. It might also help solve the old argument about crew return. The manufacturing and research sections of the habitat can be left behind in the target system for the next crew, reducing vessel mass for the return, enabling a faster trip back. Hmm, the list is endless... Lee Parker From VM Thu Feb 25 12:07:44 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["814" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "13:56:12" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 814 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13099 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12979 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p198.gnt.com [204.49.89.198]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA08163; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:01:23 -0600 Message-ID: <000201be60f8$e52f49b0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:56:12 -0600 > > Since these particals are charged conversion of their momentum to > > electricity > > > is a snap too. BUT if you convert the exaust energy to electricity and > > use > > > that electricity to accelerate a smaller mass to a higher > speed, your not > > > geting any more efficency. Rather your adding a more complex drive > > system and > > > dumping most of the fusino exaust. > > > > Not true since only a fraction of the exaust can be used for thrust,= > > Not true, all the exaust can be used for thrust if you don't tap > any of it off > to power something else like the Liniac. > You can't tap the exhaust without robbing thrust. You can, however tap the inevitable waste heat accumulated in the shielding to provide power. Now you aren't robbing thrust, you are conserving wasted energy. Lee Parker From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:35 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1729" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "23:04:20" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: Re: shielding" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1729 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21955 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:06:02 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA21946 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id EQMRa19778 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:04:20 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: shielding Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:04:20 EST In other words, we design a modular engine unit which is really a self contained ship with either minimal living quarters, or none at all == None at all, otherwise we'ld need to shield the drive pack. I'm not sure I'ld call it a ship, given its just the engines and fuel processors. ==and control it remotely. We can then design a variety of "mission modules" with standard docking connectors. As the need arises, we can change components for different missions. Effectivly the entire "ship" is a stack of modules (hab deck, hanger/storage deck, Fuel handeler, fusion drive, etc). Hey, I like this idea Kelly! It also solves the intersystem scouting problem. Detach the main habitat into orbit and use the tug to deliver other sensor packages within the system. Without the mass of the main habitat, which is busy building a fueling station right now anyway, the tug could do some serious delta v intersystem. Hell the main fuel block for the fuel/sail or explorers was in the tens of millions of tons. You'ld be hard pressed to load it up enough to keep it down to a reasonable speed. Might be usefull if you need to fetch a medium asteroid. Since it is modular, as technology progresses rather than scrap an entire ship, we just change out tugs. Makes mass production and maintenance easier too. It might also help solve the old argument about crew return. The manufacturing and research sections of the habitat can be left behind in the target system for the next crew, reducing vessel mass for the return, enabling a faster trip back. Hmm, the list is endless... Yup, or the ship on the way out could transport specilized construction, prefab space station, etc equip. ;) Lee Parker Kelly From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:35 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["324" "Thursday" "25" "February" "1999" "23:04:26" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 324 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA23580 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:10:12 -0800 (PST) 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 UAA23575 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id LZNIa04798 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:04:26 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <4e526f55.36d61d4a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Genuine STR question Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:04:26 EST You can't tap the exhaust without robbing thrust. You can, however tap the inevitable waste heat accumulated in the shielding to provide power. Now you aren't robbing thrust, you are conserving wasted energy. Lee Parker Given the reactors don't radiate hardly any power, I can't see that being a major source? Kelly From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["464" "Friday" "26" "February" "1999" "10:12:11" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 464 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29903 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29891 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p250.gnt.com [204.49.91.10]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA25958; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:17:07 -0600 Message-ID: <000501be61a2$c44c8d20$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <4e526f55.36d61d4a@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship-Design" Subject: RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:12:11 -0600 Kelly et. al. > > Given the reactors don't radiate hardly any power, I can't see > that being a > major source? > Unless we can build a one hundred percent efficient reactor or engine or...there will ALWAYS be waste heat. On the scale we are talking about for starship engines it will be significant. More than enough to run a thermoelectric generator to produce all shipboard power. Probably not anywhere near enough to power that lineac though. Lee Parker From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5393" "Friday" "26" "February" "1999" "20:31:17" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "122" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5393 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14711 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA14702 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3562 invoked by uid 506); 27 Feb 1999 02:28:35 -0000 Received: from pm3-32.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.232) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 1999 02:28:35 -0000 Message-ID: <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:31:17 -0600 Hmm, I got quite a range of responses. I guess the thing to do is speak to the hardest, that it isn't beneficial to accelerate exhaust particles to relativistic velocity. The implication is that efficiency is lost in the effort to ionize and boost the jet particles. Since efficiency is a thermodynamic term, the only possible meaning for a loss in efficiency of an accelerative heat engine is a hotter spaceship. To keep cool you have to radiate the difference coming from a loss in engine efficiency, radially, as photons. Radiating to the rear is out of the question, it's bright and hot back there, and you'd have to find a way to tunnel the photons into your own jet to cheat thermodynamics, by avoiding the penalty for your inefficiency. I won't advocate inefficiency, certainly. The thermal efficiency of accelerator designs is no boasting matter. I believe it may be possible to drastically alter this picture by a design approach which conceives the accelerator as prime mover for the mass complex making up the starship. With such incentive, particle accelerators could become paragons of thermal efficiency. The bulk, which is the spatial extension, from the residence quarters, of the inertial framework of the starship, I would expect to be a very low density structure, composed largely of fields and dynamic plasmas. In other words the rigid, massive element of the starship structure will be very small compared to the volume of the field structures. When you take into account that a closed toroidal magnetic field can become massive, in all the ways that count, as you feed it the juice, total mass of the vessel has become an adjustable quantity. That one's too hard to see. Let's pack the magnetic field with plasma, or simpler, with just homopolar particles and make it a storage ring. There, you can see that the inertial mass of the ring increases, as you speed up the circling particles so their speed difference from C becomes small. ( Yeah, I know heaviness is not what we want when we accelerate our ship, we like lightness. Just hold on. ) I wanted to show the inertial mass of the ship complex can be adjusted. When you start an interstellar journey, you are deep in a gravity well, but you have the energy advantage of being close to the system's primary, namely the Sun. For those who want to scale up to use it, that's an arbitrary amount of power available. If the mass of your ship is adjustable, as I just showed for the case of the storage ring which gains weight, it stands to reason you would want it to be heaviest at the beginning of your journey, where you could put impressive concentrations of energy into getting that rascal to move. So you take off with a vehicle complex that's really heavy. In the course of acceleration, you make use of some of the energy stored within this cycling of particles. Your total vehicle mass decreases; since most of this inertial mass was conjured up artificially by you before you left the home system, the relative importance of the actual ship mass decreases, so you can take a lot of luggage. Or an iceburg, as some of us like. Now the progressive decrease in the intertial mass of the ship complex as the journey continues, makes whatever kind of oars you're using to accelerate the ship become more effective at a later time than an earlier time. As we get lighter, we're easier to push. That makes me propose that the storage ring mechanism, in conjunction with whatever type of stardrive you are using, is acting as a transducer converting rotational energy to linear acceleration. It's a fairly efficient way to store an arbitrary amount of energy, one of a family of energy storage devices using magnetic fields which are all fiendishly efficient. That's why I wasn't overly concerned with the thermal efficiency of the particle accelerator type main mover, when compared to the crucial need to minimize the amount of reaction mass required per delta-V. I knew that reaction energy could be supplemented by stored energy, that there are ways to wind up a ship before you let it go. There may be imprecision in considering relativistic particles as manifesting an actual increase in mass, yet an increase in the resistance of the particles to acceleration is saying exactly the same thing. When you pour energy into a box and get work out, it's a machine; whatever amount of energy you put into making your jet fly faster astern, will be reflected into the coordinate system of your ship as an accelerative force. I would argue in general that a relativistic jet is optimal for transport, and that this is true whether or not the relativistic bonus is paid, which I was counting on to reduce the amount of reaction mass to take with the ship. I suppose someone may take issue, similarly, with the concept that the synchrotron or storage ring, in this posting, results in an overall increase of inertial mass, as the particles reach relativistic speeds. Fine, still you'll have fun trying to think up a more useful battery for use on a large scale. When I was a kid, I grew up thinking in terms of relativistic mass increase; now I find this image is out of fashion, but I have a hard time accepting you can do work to speed up your jet, and not have it directly reflected as accelerative force on your ship. Meditatively, Johnny Thunderbird http://impact-enterprises.hypermart.net/lowercase From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1184" "Friday" "26" "February" "1999" "22:33:11" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1184 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA29963 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA29924 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA06515 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA09525; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:33:18 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14039.37287.909038.646346@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.67 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:33:11 -0800 (PST) To respond to this in short. the ability of a self-powered spacecraft to accelerate to high relativistic velocities (roughly meaning > 70% of c) depends on the efficiency of mass-to-energy conversion of its fuel as well as the fuel-to-payload ratio. Efficiency of mass-to-energy conversion happens to correlate well with exhaust velocity. A fuel that reacts with low mass-to-energy conversion, like hydrogen fusion, requires tremendous fuel-to-payload ratios on the order of 10^6:1 to accelerate the payload to high relativistic speeds, while the ideal matter-antimatter reaction can achieve something like 80-90% mass-to-energy conversion and requires only a 4:1 fuel-to-payload ratio to get the payload to the same speed. When I get time I'll dig up the URL to the archived item where I derived these results. It's true you can reduce the total reaction mass you have to carry by accelerating it to high exhaust velocities, but if you use an inefficient fuel you end up having to carry an amount of fuel that more than makes up for the reduction in reaction mass. And the only way to reduce the fuel mass is to increase the efficiency of mass-to-energy conversion of the fuel. From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3644" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "05:32:31" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "96" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Roton ATV Rollout Webcast (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3644 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA05626 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA05610 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:38:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p218.gnt.com [204.49.89.218]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id FAA29039 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:37:53 -0600 Message-ID: <000a01be6244$dca43600$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Roton ATV Rollout Webcast (fwd) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:32:31 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 7:19 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Roton ATV Rollout Webcast (fwd) From: mheney@ad-astra.net (Michael K. Heney) Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: Roton ATV Rollout Webcast Followup-To: sci.space.policy Date: 26 Feb 1999 22:30:13 GMT Organization: Mach 25 Technologies, Inc. Lines: 75 Just a reminder - the Space Frontier Foundation will be providing webcast coverage of the Roton ATV rollout on Monday, March 1, 1999, from 11:00am - 1:00pm PST (2:00pm - 4:00pm EST), with replays available throughout the month of March. The URL for the webcast is "http://rollout.org", and of course the Space Frontier Foundation's home is "http://www.space-frontier.org". We're also offering a membership package with a Roton ATV Rollout baseball cap and copy of the rollout Press kit - stop by the site and check it out!! ---- Michael K. Heney Chairman of the Board Space Frontier Foundation. ============= Cut here for Press Release Text ================== News Release Contact: Rick Tumlinson 800-787-7223 Historic Roton SpaceShip Rollout to be WebCast Live FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Los Angeles, CA, {February 25, 1999} -- The historic rollout of the prototype for America's first privately financed spaceship will be carried live on the WorldWide Web. The Space Frontier Foundation, an international space policy and media organization announced plans to broadcast the March 1 ceremonies as they happen at the Mojave Spaceport, north of Lancaster, California, near Edwards Air Force base. Said Foundation President Rick N. Tumlinson, "The rollout of the Roton represents the beginning of a new era in space, and if it is successful will lead to access to space not just for astronauts, but for ticket purchasing passengers - and within a couple of years, not decades." The rollout event, available for viewing at http://ROLLOUT.ORG, will feature noted author Tom Clancy, Space Frontier Foundation President Rick Tumlinson, Rotary Rocket Company President Gary C. Hudson, and NASA and FAA officials. The Rotary Rocket Company, the Redwood Shores, California company building the Roton, plans for its pilots to fly the initial prototype within the atmosphere as a first step towards a later vehicle intended to reach orbit. Possible cargo for this orbital vehicle will range from telecommunications satellites to passengers. The Space Frontier Foundation is a national space policy organization dedicated to opening space to human settlement as soon as possible. The Foundation, which coined the term "Cheap Access to Space," has led a campaign to bring the cost of space transportation down for almost a decade. The March 1 webcast will be recorded for playback after the Mojave event ends. -30- The Space Frontier Foundation is an organization of people dedicated to opening the Space Frontier to human settlement as rapidly as possible. Our goals include protecting the Earth's fragile biosphere and creating a freer and more prosperous life for each generation by using the unlimited energy and material resources of space. Our purpose is to unleash the power of free enterprise and lead a united humanity permanently into the Solar System. For information on the Foundation call 1-800-78-SPACE or visit our WEB Site at: http://www.space-frontier.org Our E-Mail Address is information@space-frontier.org The Space Frontier Foundation, 16 First Avenue, Nyack NY 10960 From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2067" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "08:52:06" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2067 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA28258 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA28253 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 06:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p274.gnt.com [204.49.91.34]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA09089 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:56:31 -0600 Message-ID: <000b01be6260$be6a42d0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:52:06 -0600 Kelly, I have been thinking more about the modular concept. Although I still like the idea of modularizing the ship, I am less enthusiastic about moving the engine form one end to the other. There are a number of technical difficulties which although, not insurmountable, would make it rather cumbersome, chief among which is suddenly having the floor of the living section become the ceiling.... If on the other hand the main living quarters were to be built in the center of the ship surrounded on all sides by the fuel tank, the protection would be optimum. Then we go back to spinning the ship end for end. Due to the fuel/payload ratios of the first few ships to go out (assuming fusion or fusion hybrid rather than pure antimatter) there will be plenty of fuel for shielding. I would still want to be able to detach the engine module for local intersystem exploration. Which means that it would need to have some redundant tankage of its own on board. I am envisioning something like a can in shape, with some of the systems shaped like wafers attached to the front and rear of the can so they can be easily detached. I also erred in assuming that a faster return trajectory was possible this way. The problem is again the fuel to payload ratio. The mass of the research/exploration module although not small, is insignificant when compared to the mass of the fuel. There might be some decrease in trip time, but I doubt it would be much. I am still leaning toward a continuous engine burn rather than coasting. The fuel requirement is much larger, but within reach and the decrease in trip time is significant. The key factor there is actually going to be engine lifetime as we had discussed earlier. Current magnetic nozzle technology is several generations short of being able to provide burn time measured in months or years but I feel confident that the next fifty years will see major changes in the state of the art. Lee Parker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." -- Sun CEO Scott McNealy From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2798" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "11:35:28" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2798 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22434 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA22422 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20036 invoked by uid 506); 27 Feb 1999 17:32:32 -0000 Received: from pm3-28.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.228) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 1999 17:32:32 -0000 Message-ID: <36D82CE0.6D66F70E@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> <14039.37287.909038.646346@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:35:28 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > To respond to this in short. the ability of a self-powered > spacecraft to accelerate to high relativistic velocities (roughly > meaning > 70% of c) depends on the efficiency of mass-to-energy > conversion of its fuel as well as the fuel-to-payload ratio. right --- you didn't speak to the issue of decoupling the drive system from the energy production system. I went to some length to stick a battery in the ship with the potential to power the entire journey, just to point up you can make an interstellar journey on stored energy alone. No fusion reaction, no antimatter reaction, no coal, just passive reaction mass which is not fuel, pushed out by stored energy. I don't like a drive without a reaction, but it makes the point a feline can be flayed more than one way, to widen perspective on the way things have to be. > Efficiency of mass-to-energy conversion happens to correlate well > with exhaust velocity. If they are directly coupled, if your energy conversion process is integral to your drive system. Energy can be transmitted for miles in nearly lossless fashion, so your energy conversion could be miles from your drive without adding measurable loss. > A fuel that reacts with low > mass-to-energy conversion, like hydrogen fusion, requires > tremendous fuel-to-payload ratios on the order of 10^6:1 to > accelerate the payload to high relativistic speeds, while the > ideal matter-antimatter reaction can achieve something like > 80-90% mass-to-energy conversion and requires only a 4:1 > fuel-to-payload ratio to get the payload to the same speed. > > When I get time I'll dig up the URL to the archived item where I > derived these results. It's true you can reduce the total > reaction mass you have to carry by accelerating it to high > exhaust velocities, but if you use an inefficient fuel you end up > having to carry an amount of fuel that more than makes up for the > reduction in reaction mass. And the only way to reduce the fuel > mass is to increase the efficiency of mass-to-energy conversion > of the fuel. The drive is the legs of the ship. The reactor is its belly. Energy conversion efficiency is how well the belly does. The efficiency figures for the drive can be a separate figure, measuring how long the legs are, if your design does not lock these components inseparably together. The notion I'm advocating at present, is that it is inefficient for the drive to have a thermal signature. No matter how hot your fire, none of the exhaust products will have anything near relativistic speeds. Whatever your fire, and whatever your fuel, it will pay you to convert the liberated energy to push in an accelerator, if you can do so with an acceptably low loss. Regards, Johnny Thunderbird http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["700" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "13:42:07" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 700 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA05350 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:43:34 -0800 (PST) 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 KAA05334 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id JKVRa04798 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:42:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <98519b66.36d83c7f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:42:07 EST > Given the reactors don't radiate hardly any power, I can't see > that being a > major source? > Unless we can build a one hundred percent efficient reactor or engine or...there will ALWAYS be waste heat. On the scale we are talking about for starship engines it will be significant. More than enough to run a thermoelectric generator to produce all shipboard power. Probably not anywhere near enough to power that lineac though. Well there would be a small (well under 1% if were lucky) waste heat factor. But the main engines would only be usesd on entry or exit from a starsystem. So you couldn't use it to provide shipboard power for the bulk of the flight. Lee Parker Kelly From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["546" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "14:20:46" "-0500" "Curtis L. Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "12" "starship-design: engines, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 546 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13624 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:22:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA13579 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.23]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with ESMTP id <19990227192146.GBNK3776@worldnet.att.net> for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:21:46 +0000 Message-ID: <36D8458E.3B7976FB@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Curtis L. Manges" From: "Curtis L. Manges" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: engines, etc. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:20:46 -0500 Hello, group, I've been wondering about this: assuming a fusion engine as primary power, it seems you could divert some of the plasma to an MHD generator for auxiliary power. Does this seem workable, or am I behind the times? Would it, perhaps, produce enough power to drive your linac? I would have doubts about it having sufficient longevity, despite having no moving parts (other than its cooling system), due to accelerated aging of the components exposed to the plasma stream. Would its DC output be an advantage or a disadvantage? Curtis From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1984" "Saturday" "27" "February" "1999" "17:27:24" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1984 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16381 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA16370 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA14714 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13342; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:27:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14040.39804.548265.601123@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36D82CE0.6D66F70E@nternet.com> References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> <14039.37287.909038.646346@localhost.efn.org> <36D82CE0.6D66F70E@nternet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.68 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:27:24 -0800 (PST) Johnny Thunderbird writes: > right --- you didn't speak to the issue of decoupling the drive system > from the energy production system. I went to some length to stick a > battery in the ship with the potential to power the entire journey, > just to point up you can make an interstellar journey on stored energy > alone. No fusion reaction, no antimatter reaction, no coal, just passive > reaction mass which is not fuel, pushed out by stored energy. I don't > like a drive without a reaction, but it makes the point a feline can be > flayed more than one way, to widen perspective on the way things > have to be. Just how would you store all that energy? The best way to store energy using the least excess mass that I know of is to store it as equal parts of matter and antimatter. Energy in a battery _is_ mass. And remember, to get something up to something like 80-90% of c with an acceleration that passengers and other normal matter can stand requires approximately _4 times_ as much fuel mass as payload in the ideal case of using antimatter fuel; it goes rapidly downhill from there. That's a tremendous amount of energy. If you didn't have to worry about gradual acceleration then you'd need only the mass-equivalent of excess kinetic energy. This does change significantly if you can send energy to the payload for propulsion rather than have it carry its own fuel. However, if you can beam power to the ship then you may as well just deploy a lightsail to reflect that beam during the boost phase, as that turns out to be the most efficient way to use those photons to accelerate the ship. Then you don't even have to carry excess reaction mass (and any collector that you use to pick up the energy would likely weigh as much as the sail). Then you only have to carry fuel/reaction mass for the deceleration phase, although I'm of the opinion that finding a way to harness the drag of the interstellar medium would probably save you a lot of that work. From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["683" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "07:50:29" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 683 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12150 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:55:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA12145 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p269.gnt.com [204.49.91.29]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA07202; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:55:34 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01be6321$4d15af90$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <98519b66.36d83c7f@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:50:29 -0600 > Well there would be a small (well under 1% if were lucky) waste > heat factor. > But the main engines would only be usesd on entry or exit from a > starsystem. > So you couldn't use it to provide shipboard power for the bulk of > the flight. Even AIMSTAR has more waste heat than that. It is beside the point though. All of the current designs being worked on (AIMSTAR, VASIMR, etc.) require significant amounts of onboard power just for the engines. The few kW needed to run ship board systems wouldn't even be noticed. The weight of the machinery to recover the waste heat would probably make it unattractive unless it can be combined with the main power generator. Lee Parker From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["941" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "07:50:27" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: engines, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 941 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12157 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA12151 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 05:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p269.gnt.com [204.49.91.29]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA07197; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:55:33 -0600 Message-ID: <000e01be6321$4c48e9b0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <36D8458E.3B7976FB@worldnet.att.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Curtis L. Manges" , Subject: RE: starship-design: engines, etc. Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:50:27 -0600 No, you don't want to divert plasma to power an MHD generator. This results in decreased thrust from the plasma. Nor can you derive enough power from the waste heat to do much more than power on board systems. Typically we are talking maybe 10 to 50 kW of power. This power comes from the waste heat in the shielding around the engine not from the exhaust. > -----Original Message----- > > I've been wondering about this: assuming a fusion engine as primary > power, it seems you could divert some of the plasma to an MHD generator > for auxiliary power. Does this seem workable, or am I behind the times? > Would it, perhaps, produce enough power to drive your linac? I would > have doubts about it having sufficient longevity, despite having no > moving parts (other than its cooling system), due to accelerated aging > of the components exposed to the plasma stream. Would its DC output be > an advantage or a disadvantage? > > Curtis > From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["652" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "12:34:06" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 652 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA18349 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA18240 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:33:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25218 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17295; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:34:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14041.43070.193812.694708@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <001e01be6329$910b5300$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> References: <001e01be6329$910b5300$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> X-Mailer: VM 6.68 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:34:06 -0800 (PST) Antonio C T Rocha writes: > Use mass as a flywheel. Spin it up to store energy, brake to extract. Using > micro-G to your advantage, axles and couplings will not be necessary except > during actual spin-up or spin-down operations. Hence, no losses from > friction during "storage". The only way a flywheel could store enough energy to propel a starship at relativistic speeds would be for it to spin at relativistic speeds itself, and then it would have additional mass equivalent to the amount of energy it is storing. There's no way you could build such a thing with normal materials; even neutronium won't hold together under such conditions. From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["560" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "15:06:18" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 560 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27773 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27762 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:11:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p420.gnt.com [204.49.91.228]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA10245; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:11:28 -0600 Message-ID: <000101be635e$2f72c940$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <14041.43070.193812.694708@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" , "starship-design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:06:18 -0600 Yes, but he DID just create a neat little space warp with his flywheel! (Ultradense ring of matter spinning at lightspeed - just fly through the middle of the ring...) Lee Parker > The only way a flywheel could store enough energy to propel a > starship at relativistic speeds would be for it to spin at > relativistic speeds itself, and then it would have additional > mass equivalent to the amount of energy it is storing. There's > no way you could build such a thing with normal materials; even > neutronium won't hold together under such conditions. > From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["978" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "18:25:34" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "27" "starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 978 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02104 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02085 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 200.252.253.95 ([200.252.253.95]) by mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id TAA16000; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:25:00 -0200 (BRV) Message-ID: <016c01be6360$ee4593a0$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Antonio C T Rocha" From: "Antonio C T Rocha" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Clayton Parker" , "Steve VanDevender" , "starship-design" Subject: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:25:34 -0300 Just fantasizing, of course, but : Counter-rotating masses of superconducting stuff (a condensate?) carrying static circular current. Compensating for one another. Gues I'll toy with that one for a while. Antonio C T Rocha -----Mensagem original----- De: L. Clayton Parker Data: Domingo, 28 de Fevereiro de 1999 18:07 Assunto: RE: starship-design: Genuine STR question >Yes, but he DID just create a neat little space warp with his flywheel! >(Ultradense ring of matter spinning at lightspeed - just fly through the >middle of the ring...) > >Lee Parker > >> The only way a flywheel could store enough energy to propel a >> starship at relativistic speeds would be for it to spin at >> relativistic speeds itself, and then it would have additional >> mass equivalent to the amount of energy it is storing. There's >> no way you could build such a thing with normal materials; even >> neutronium won't hold together under such conditions. >> > From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1672" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "14:02:54" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "34" "starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1672 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09047 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09042 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:02:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09278 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA17743; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:02:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14041.48398.164803.737615@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <016c01be6360$ee4593a0$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> References: <016c01be6360$ee4593a0$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> X-Mailer: VM 6.68 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design" Subject: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:02:54 -0800 (PST) Antonio C T Rocha writes: > Just fantasizing, of course, but : > Counter-rotating masses of superconducting stuff (a condensate?) carrying > static circular current. Compensating for one another. > Gues I'll toy with that one for a while. > > Antonio C T Rocha Superconductors have this problem where a magnetic field above a certain strength breaks down their superconducting properties. This puts a limit on how much current any superconductor can carry, since the current creates a magnetic field around the superconductor. One amusing feature of relativistic kinematics is that while one photon is massless, two or more photons treated together as a system usually aren't (unless they are all traveling in exactly the same direction). So, for example, if you could create a fiber-optic ring and pump a large amount of laser light into it, you would make it heavier; the sum of the energy-momentum vectors of all the photons in the ring would add up to an energy-momentum vector that has a mass. The ring also has to exert a centripetal force against all the photons bouncing around its outside to keep them contained, so eventually you could rupture the ring by putting enough photons into it. In any case, stored energy _is_ mass. If you can somehow cram a tremendous amount of energy into any kind of container, it gets more massive. Normally the amount of stored energy in things like chemical batteries or warm objects is too small of a fraction of the total mass to measure, but there's really no way to make an exotic battery that can hold an amount of energy on the order of its own mass where it won't get more massive as you charge it up. From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2865" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "18:29:45" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2865 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03713 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:30:37 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA03702 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id RWVKa05517 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:29:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4424b269.36d9d169@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Modular Ship Design Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:29:45 EST Kelly, I have been thinking more about the modular concept. Although I still like the idea of modularizing the ship, I am less enthusiastic about moving the engine form one end to the other. There are a number of technical difficulties which although, not insurmountable, would make it rather cumbersome, chief among which is suddenly having the floor of the living section become the ceiling.... Since I had a centrafuge with rotating segments. The floor's can move to the sides front or rear as nessisary. Or for that mater you could just flip the hab segment over as you restack the modular ship? If on the other hand the main living quarters were to be built in the center of the ship surrounded on all sides by the fuel tank, the protection would be optimum. Then we go back to spinning the ship end for end. Due to the fuel/payload ratios of the first few ships to go out (assuming fusion or fusion hybrid rather than pure antimatter) there will be plenty of fuel for shielding. I would still want to be able to detach the engine module for local intersystem exploration. Which means that it would need to have some redundant tankage of its own on board. I am envisioning something like a can in shape, with some of the systems shaped like wafers attached to the front and rear of the can so they can be easily detached. By picking Lithum-proton as a fusion fuel, I figured we could do without tanks at all since the fuel is a structural metal. So the drive system is effectivly a tug pushing a huge (or small depending) solid block of metal. Wrap yourself in it for shielding, stack it in frount for easy shoving, maybe even use it for structural supports. I also erred in assuming that a faster return trajectory was possible this way. The problem is again the fuel to payload ratio. The mass of the research/exploration module although not small, is insignificant when compared to the mass of the fuel. There might be some decrease in trip time, but I doubt it would be much. Yeah even with fusion your ship looks like a huge block of fuel with a little ship (probably half engine by weight, attached to it. I am still leaning toward a continuous engine burn rather than coasting. The fuel requirement is much larger, but within reach and the decrease in trip time is significant. The key factor there is actually going to be engine lifetime as we had discussed earlier. Current magnetic nozzle technology is several generations short of being able to provide burn time measured in months or years but I feel confident that the next fifty years will see major changes in the state of the art. I don't worry as much about burn time limits, but with the fuel carry limits we have a prett much fixed upper speed limit. I'ld rather get to it quickly, not speed half the flight geting to speed. Lee Parker Kelly From VM Sun Feb 28 17:14:36 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1118" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "18:29:52" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: engines, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1118 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA03843 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:31:01 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA03828 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 0TPLa04340 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:29:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: engines, etc. Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:29:52 EST >Hello, group, > > I've been wondering about this: assuming a fusion engine > as primary power, it seems you could divert some of > the plasma to an MHD generator for auxiliary power. > Does this seem workable, or am I behind the times? No thats the primary way to convert the kind of reactor products I've been talking about to power. > Would it, perhaps, produce enough power to drive your linac? The problem is conservation of energy. Every bit of power you take out of the drive plasma, cuts that much thrust. The fact you pull it out of that system to use it to provide thrust by a linac, just means your linac is returning some of the thrust taken from the direct thrust. > I would have doubts about it having sufficient longevity, > despite having no moving parts (other than its cooling > system), due to accelerated aging of the components > exposed to the plasma stream. Would its DC output be > an advantage or a disadvantage? Longevity is debateable. Some comercial designs figured they could operate fusion power planys like this. But since we have no field experience.. > Curtis Kelly From VM Sun Feb 28 17:46:46 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3574" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "11:46:10" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@zaz.com.br" nil "69" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3574 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA10390 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA10379 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:42:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18162 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 200.252.253.95 ([200.252.253.95]) by mail.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id MAA05565; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:48:29 -0200 (BRV) Message-ID: <001e01be6329$910b5300$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Antonio C T Rocha" From: "Antonio C T Rocha" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" , "starship-design" Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:46:10 -0300 Use mass as a flywheel. Spin it up to store energy, brake to extract. Using micro-G to your advantage, axles and couplings will not be necessary except during actual spin-up or spin-down operations. Hence, no losses from friction during "storage". Energy to compensate for micro-gravitational or vapor-pressure damping will be so low as to be suppliable from "compact" sources. A few units of non-critical thorium heaters could take care of that,. and maybe other energy necessities. Such heaters already exist and are quite compact, coming in mettalic tubular units about 7 feet high and 2 feet wide. The heat output is used to drive turbines. From there on... Antonio C T Rocha -----Mensagem original----- De: Steve VanDevender Para: starship-design Data: Domingo, 28 de Fevereiro de 1999 02:14 Assunto: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question >Johnny Thunderbird writes: > > right --- you didn't speak to the issue of decoupling the drive system > > from the energy production system. I went to some length to stick a > > battery in the ship with the potential to power the entire journey, > > just to point up you can make an interstellar journey on stored energy > > alone. No fusion reaction, no antimatter reaction, no coal, just passive > > reaction mass which is not fuel, pushed out by stored energy. I don't > > like a drive without a reaction, but it makes the point a feline can be > > flayed more than one way, to widen perspective on the way things > > have to be. > >Just how would you store all that energy? The best way to store >energy using the least excess mass that I know of is to store it >as equal parts of matter and antimatter. Energy in a battery >_is_ mass. Use mass as a flywheel. Spin it up to store energy, brake to extract. Using micro-G to your advantage, axles and couplings will not be necessary except during actual spin-up or spin-down operations. Hence, no losses from friction during "storage". Energy to compensate for micro-gravitational damping will be so low as to be suppliable from "compact" sources. A few units of non-critical thorium heaters could take care of that,. and maybe other energy necessities. Such heaters already exist and are quite compact, coming in mettalic tubular units about 7 feet high and 2 feet wide. The heat output is used to drive turbines. From there on... > >And remember, to get something up to something like 80-90% of c >with an acceleration that passengers and other normal matter can >stand requires approximately _4 times_ as much fuel mass as >payload in the ideal case of using antimatter fuel; it goes >rapidly downhill from there. That's a tremendous amount of >energy. If you didn't have to worry about gradual acceleration >then you'd need only the mass-equivalent of excess kinetic >energy. > >This does change significantly if you can send energy to the >payload for propulsion rather than have it carry its own fuel. >However, if you can beam power to the ship then you may as well >just deploy a lightsail to reflect that beam during the boost >phase, as that turns out to be the most efficient way to use >those photons to accelerate the ship. Then you don't even have >to carry excess reaction mass (and any collector that you use to >pick up the energy would likely weigh as much as the sail). Then >you only have to carry fuel/reaction mass for the deceleration >phase, although I'm of the opinion that finding a way to harness >the drag of the interstellar medium would probably save you a lot >of that work. From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5828" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "21:27:04" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "110" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5828 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06998 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA06993 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11440 invoked by uid 506); 1 Mar 1999 03:24:44 -0000 Received: from pm3-09.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.209) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 1999 03:24:44 -0000 Message-ID: <36DA0908.2E747CDE@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> <14039.37287.909038.646346@localhost.efn.org> <36D82CE0.6D66F70E@nternet.com> <14040.39804.548265.601123@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:27:04 -0600 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Johnny Thunderbird writes: > > right --- you didn't speak to the issue of decoupling the drive system > > from the energy production system. I went to some length to stick a > > battery in the ship with the potential to power the entire journey, > > just to point up you can make an interstellar journey on stored energy > > alone. No fusion reaction, no antimatter reaction, no coal, just passive > > reaction mass which is not fuel, pushed out by stored energy. I don't > > like a drive without a reaction, but it makes the point a feline can be > > flayed more than one way, to widen perspective on the way things > > have to be. > > Just how would you store all that energy? The best way to store > energy using the least excess mass that I know of is to store it > as equal parts of matter and antimatter. Energy in a battery > _is_ mass. Methinks you do but too corporeally philosophize. Antimatter in a magnetic bottle, perhaps illuminated with cooling lasers, is a good way to store fuel, which has very impressive potential energy. It is the ultimate fuel. It may not be the lowest-mass approach to energy storage, however. Energy stored in fields does not have mass as one of its predominant aspects, just a secondary characteristic, more abstractly called mass equivalent. Energy stored in fields is just energy, input and output as electric current, and maintained as magnetism. It is very controllable, and almost perfectly efficient, assuming use of superconductors. Say your most basic battery is a superconductor, helically wound around a torus. The amount of energy stored in this battery is limited only by the structural yield strength of the materials, and by how well the specific superconductor rejects magnetic fields. Crucially, the amount of energy stored has no direct relationship to the mass of the device. In a system using the potential energy of fuels, there is always a direct relationship between the mass of the fuel and the total energy available. By storing energy in fields, we break this relationship. In starship construction we are free to think big. Instead of making our coils out of wire, we make our coils from the flight paths of charged particles, which we have somehow cajoled or persuaded to fly in exactly the geometry we want. It's cheaper than wire and a lot lighter, and we're building big. The efficiency of a flight of charged particles in free space is exactly the same as current in a superconductor: perfect. If for the moment you will allow me a sorceror to stand by and direct these particles in their magic paths, in time I can show you that there are dynamic forces in equilibrium which will take the sorceror's place. For now, the sorceror shows the particles they should zoom around in a toroidal helix. Again we build up a magnetic field, which stores energy directly with perfect efficiency. This time, our battery is a mile across instead of a meter across, as in our lab superconducting magnet. The amount of energy it can store is greater in proportion; but what does it weigh? It weighs less than our one meter lab testbed, because it doesn't have any wire in it. It weighs less than a photograph of our lab superconductive magnet, maybe. But it's big, and stores a great heap of energy, and it is very rigid indeed. That's the kind of battery I like. Don't tease me about my sorceror, unless you want to jump into serious engineering with charged particle dynamics. Most folks would rather eat nails. But if it worries you too much to think about big structures which contain no solids, retreat to storing energy in superconductive magnets. I mentioned the energy stored is not proportional to the mass of the coil, as long as mechanical strength is respected. You may wind each coil around a torus of Hydrogen ice, which gives fair mechanical strength at low mass, cheaply. For cooling, shade works pretty good, in space. The energy you can store in each coil is really surprising; it takes a hellacious magnetic field to crush a tube of solid Hydrogen, and that's how much juice you can feed it. The coil weighs the same, no matter how much energy it contains. So saying batteries must be heavy isn't strictly true. The proportionality between mass, and the amount of energy available, only holds with fuel systems. Energy storage in fields doesn't have such a restriction, and its perfect efficiency is always a big plus. Field storage techniques will hold an arbitrary amount of energy, which by coincidence just happens to be exactly the amount of energy we need on our starship. That's my general answer to your "how " question, though in particular I like to have more particles and stuff whizzing around, while there are magnetic lines of force handy to hang them on, to store yet more energy. Humans have burned fires for eons, until it has become practically instinctive with us. Heat engines are the foundation of our technology. We can predict their performance very precisely with thermodynamics. We know they are not the best approach for all technological tasks, particularly those demanding the ultimate in efficiency. Space transportation is emphatically an application where efficiency should be stressed above all else. I say we should de-emphasize the heat engine and all variants of thermal reactors in starship design, for all applications in which electromagnetic machinery can be used instead. No complex heat engine has ever approached a 40% level of efficiency, but electrical machinery quite typically achieves 98% efficiency in practice. This tells us fire may not be the best answer this time, nor fuel our main concern. If we can store astronomical amounts of energy in cold fields and cold dynamics, we reduce the need for both fire and fuel. Respectfully, Johnny Thunderbird From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["786" "Sunday" "28" "February" "1999" "19:48:55" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 786 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA10625 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10620 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA10886 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19049; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14042.3623.16784.472293@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36DA0908.2E747CDE@nternet.com> References: <36D0B3AE.7DDFE4E0@nternet.com> <36D758F5.AA7D5600@nternet.com> <14039.37287.909038.646346@localhost.efn.org> <36D82CE0.6D66F70E@nternet.com> <14040.39804.548265.601123@tzadkiel.efn.org> <36DA0908.2E747CDE@nternet.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.68 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:48:55 -0800 (PST) Get a copy of _Spacetime Physics_ and read the later chapters on relativistic kinematics (chapters 7 and 8, if I recall correctly). Energy is mass. Mass is energy. A field has mass; if you charge the field by converting 1 kg of mass to energy in the field, the field has 1 kg of mass in it, with all the properties that entails. Using fields as structural elements in a ship may take a lot less mass than using plain old matter, but they will still have mass. The reason I say that any battery you use to power a starship must be heavy is that to get the starship to relativistic speeds, it takes an amount of energy roughly equal to mass of the starship (the faster you go, the more you need). You can't "hide" that energy in such a way as to eliminate that excess fuel mass. From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:37 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5372" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "03:05:01" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "115" "Re: starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5372 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22964 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA22778 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:08:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 17369 invoked by uid 506); 1 Mar 1999 09:02:37 -0000 Received: from pm3-34.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.234) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 1999 09:02:37 -0000 Message-ID: <36DA583D.8ACD58E8@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <016c01be6360$ee4593a0$5ffdfcc8@200.252.253.95> <14041.48398.164803.737615@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 03:05:01 -0600 We're getting somewhere now. Steve's answer here reminded me that I had inaccurately portrayed energy storage systems as not increasing in mass with energy, as I was pointing out our building starships with monster fires in them might have more to do with our primal urge to build fires, than with the needs of starships. Steve VanDevender wrote: > Antonio C T Rocha writes: > > Just fantasizing, of course, but : > > Counter-rotating masses of superconducting stuff (a condensate?) carrying > > static circular current. Compensating for one another. > > Gues I'll toy with that one for a while. > > > > Antonio C T Rocha > > Superconductors have this problem where a magnetic field above a > certain strength breaks down their superconducting properties. > This puts a limit on how much current any superconductor can > carry, since the current creates a magnetic field around the > superconductor. > > One amusing feature of relativistic kinematics is that while one > photon is massless, two or more photons treated together as a > system usually aren't (unless they are all traveling in exactly > the same direction). So, for example, if you could create a > fiber-optic ring and pump a large amount of laser light into it, > you would make it heavier; the sum of the energy-momentum vectors > of all the photons in the ring would add up to an energy-momentum > vector that has a mass. The ring also has to exert a centripetal > force against all the photons bouncing around its outside to keep > them contained, so eventually you could rupture the ring by > putting enough photons into it. > > In any case, stored energy _is_ mass. If you can somehow cram a > tremendous amount of energy into any kind of container, it gets > more massive. Normally the amount of stored energy in things > like chemical batteries or warm objects is too small of a > fraction of the total mass to measure, but there's really no way > to make an exotic battery that can hold an amount of energy on > the order of its own mass where it won't get more massive as you > charge it up. The inertial business of moving the ship requires a harder push for a ship with lots of stored energy, so in effect its mass has indeed increased. That statement is neutral in the selection between a fueled fiery ship, and another ship design using cold stored energy with electrical tools of propulsion, like an accelerator. But I felt like I was getting into Steve's mind a bit during this realization. I kind of got a flash of like telepathy, because all of a sudden I realized he was trying to think of something, and it was something I was also trying to think of, and didn't know it. Anyway, what I think it was, was we were both desperately trying to remember a centripetal factor, which would hold a ring of relativistic particles together. Of course the answer is gravity. If the speedy little rascals are getting effectively heavier, they're radiating gravitons, which will intercept and interact with all the other parts of the ring, most effectively with the ring segment directly opposite. Geons are what self gravitating magnetic fields are called. At the threshold where you first get the speed of the particles just right to make the ring hold together, you get a critical band of velocities for the ring particles, within which you can adjust factors such as the size of the ring. By moving the particles a bit faster, you increase the gravity and shrink the ring. Within the ring is a microgravity environment. It's time to haul out the old sorceror to wrap the ring in a spiral sheath of electrons, to hold the ring all together. The core of the ring is made of relativistic protons hung on magnetic field lines, all together. These electrons are slower than the protons, because they are not relativistic. They move at exactly the ( helical ) orbital velocity around the ring, very near its surface, under the combined attraction of gravity and charge. Charge predominates so much, that the gravitational difference an electron feels inside and outside the ring does not grossly affect the orbital shape. The choice you have, in choosing the handedness or direction of the spiral sheath of electrons, is whether you want to boost or buck the gross magnetic field of the ring's protons. Counterrotating flywheels was just suggested in here, by Antonio C T Rocha. Generalizing to rings in this case, counterrotating rings would establish rigid structure for the extended ( unpressurized, not in solid contact ) portion of the ship. Rings of opposite spin are repulsive, so a very stable equilibrium can be established, by balancing that repulsion against the gravitational attraction which wants to bring the two rings together. The best idea seems to set the spiral sheath to boost the proton magnetic field, and to use two mutually repulsive rings around your ship. That seems to give a robust structure to the ship complex, to get better scores on the crash tests and so forth. There is a convenient zone between the rings where everything cancels out, gravity, charge and magnetism, and it's just like down home in outer space. That's where your ship sits. So do we have the possibility of a stored energy solution here? The battery is shaping up, as those rings. Johnny Thunderbird -=Scythian WebRing=- http://www.geocities.com/~jthunderbird/scythia.html From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1017" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "08:50:51" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1017 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29217 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA29162 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA27892; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:55:53 -0600 Message-ID: <000501be63f2$e684f060$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <14041.48398.164803.737615@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" , "starship-design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:50:51 -0600 Steve, This last response of yours reminds me of something that has been nagging at me for a few weeks now. > -----Original Message----- > One amusing feature of relativistic kinematics is that while one > photon is massless, two or more photons treated together as a > system usually aren't (unless they are all traveling in exactly > the same direction). So, for example, if you could create a > fiber-optic ring and pump a large amount of laser light into it, > you would make it heavier; ...[clip] It seems to me that there isn't any real difference between a supermassive ring rotating at the speed of light and a great deal of energy rotating at the speed of light. Although it would probably require more energy than we can possibly generate to actually produce the sorts of space warps predicted by theory, I would think that we should be able measure some effect inside the ring of modern accelerators. Has anybody ever checked for some measurable phenomenon such as frame dragging or such? Lee Parker From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1571" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "08:50:49" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "48" "RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1571 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29190 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA29113 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA27888; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:55:51 -0600 Message-ID: <000401be63f2$e523d9c0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <4424b269.36d9d169@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:50:49 -0600 Kelly, > -----Original Message----- > Since I had a centrafuge with rotating segments. The floor's can > move to the > sides front or rear as nessisary. Or for that mater you could > just flip the > hab segment over as you restack the modular ship? Flipping the whole hab was pretty much the way I saw it too, it is just the idea of doing this in flight at a significant fraction of light speed which bothers me. > By picking Lithum-proton as a fusion fuel, I figured we could do > without tanks > at all since the fuel is a structural metal. So the drive system is > effectivly a tug pushing a huge (or small depending) solid block of metal. > Wrap yourself in it for shielding, stack it in frount for easy > shoving, maybe > even use it for structural supports. It would probably need to be pelletized before it could be sent into the reactor/engine. Just as easy to build a giant tank and fill it full of lithium pellets. > I don't worry as much about burn time limits, but with the fuel > carry limits > we have a prett much fixed upper speed limit. I'ld rather get to > it quickly, > not speed half the flight geting to speed. I don't see this at all. Given: Scenario A Scenario B 1 G thrust 1 G thrust 3 month burn 3 year burn Then delta v of Scenario A is less than delta v of Scenario B, and total trip time of Scenario A is greater than Scenario B. The only constraining factor is can we carry sufficient propellant to maintain continuous thrust? (There is also the little problem that B requires more engine than A as well...) Lee Parker From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["852" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "09:44:20" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 852 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00499 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:01:42 -0800 (PST) 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 HAA00489 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 9RQTa20557 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:44:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:44:20 EST > Well there would be a small (well under 1% if were lucky) waste > heat factor. > But the main engines would only be usesd on entry or exit from a > starsystem. > So you couldn't use it to provide shipboard power for the bulk of > the flight. Even AIMSTAR has more waste heat than that. One of the Reason I like the Bussard reactor designs. It is beside the point though. All of the current designs being worked on (AIMSTAR, VASIMR, etc.) require significant amounts of onboard power just for the engines. The few kW needed to run ship board systems wouldn't even be noticed. KW! A house takes KW. These engines would be at least pumping around K megawatts. The weight of the machinery to recover the waste heat would probably make it unattractive unless it can be combined with the main power generator. Lee Parker Kelly From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["731" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "10:37:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 731 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12470 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:58:10 -0800 (PST) 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 HAA12453 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id DDXOa05517 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3ae95ffc.36dab445@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:37:41 EST Ok, I'm not going to repost all the latest comments about storingenergy in energy, coils of curved partical tracks, and mile across magnetic fields. These might be possible in some sence, but we don't know, nor do we know how. Power in large megnetic fields places tremendous structural loads on the coild or other systems that control it. Plus it would interact with the interstellar medium. Interact with the ships structure. Play hell with any craft trying to aproach or leave the ship, etc, etc. In short its a very speculative idea at best. And one we can't assume would be lighter or more capable then more conventional ones. Oh, and heat engines with MHD stages can exceed 40%, I beleave they have exceeded 60%. Kelly From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1286" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "09:59:32" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1286 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA15390 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:05:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA15383 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA02696; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:05:00 -0600 Message-ID: <000801be63fc$7f100fa0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:59:32 -0600 Kelly, > > Even AIMSTAR has more waste heat than that. > > One of the Reason I like the Bussard reactor designs. Although not currently practicable, I prefer the Bussard design myself. > > KW! A house takes KW. These engines would be at least pumping around K > megawatts. I think you mistook what I was saying. Current designs all rely on some fusion or antimatter based engine, the particular engine is irrelevant. All of these engines require some sort of massive energy hog system to either initiate or contain the reaction, in many cases both. So the engine requires we have gigawatts of power already available just to light the fire so to speak. My point was: a) recovery of waste heat is probably an insignificant factor at these power levels, and b) any generator capable of providing us with gigawatts to start and run the engines, can spare a few kW or even mW to run shipboard systems such as electronics, heat, air conditioning, etc. >From a purely engineering point of view, the better the engine, the less waste heat we would have, therefore even less would be available for recovery to provide shipboard power. At the moment though, this isn't the case. Current systems are so inefficient that there is actually quite a bit left over as waste heat. Lee Parker From VM Mon Mar 1 09:59:38 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1304" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "10:31:36" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "32" "starship-design: realistic travel." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1304 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21057 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA20995 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin50.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.50]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA14281 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:27:15 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36DACEF8.2F5F97DA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: realistic travel. Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:31:36 -0700 Looking at the crystal ball I see ... ( dam it fogged again and I am out of quarters ), that it takes several long steps to from fiction to fact. 1) The dream 2) The idea 3) The R&D stage 4) The Early development 5) Practical use 6) Wide Spread use. Each step requires the same amount of effort but many things can block the goals. With inter-stellar star ship design still at the idea stage,It is hard to say what developments will be make it practical. Inter-solar travel will have a strong impact on what can and is practical, of inter-stellar travel. I can see unmanned probes travelling to the stars when we travel to the planets. Inter-solar travel will depend on contruction on Mars. Mars devlopment will depend on lunar-earth space stations. The space stations will depend on the type of Single stage to orbit launch craft. SSTO craft will need a "sane" and steady payload. With a SSTO payload about the size of regular truck, this will take a lot of planning. I see a fleat of 5 small trucks and 2 larger trucks rough figure. So lets see some inter-solar designs to plan the inter-stelar craft. Design in very small peices but think big. Ben. PS remember it was the Small computer that developed todays computer, not some main frame collecting dust. ( Where have all the saturn 5,s gone?) From VM Mon Mar 1 13:52:20 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["612" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "15:21:39" "-0600" "Gene Marlin" "rmarlin@network-one.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 612 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07100 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun2.network-one.com (sun2.network-one.com [209.149.88.20]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07084 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from premio (fmodem42.network-one.com [209.149.88.91]) by sun2.network-one.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA6D78 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:28:42 -0600 Message-ID: <000601be6429$7fb297c0$5b5895d1@premio> 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Gene Marlin" From: "Gene Marlin" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:21:39 -0600 So, for example, if you could create a >fiber-optic ring and pump a large amount of laser light into it, >you would make it heavier; the sum of the energy-momentum vectors >of all the photons in the ring would add up to an energy-momentum >vector that has a mass. The ring also has to exert a centripetal >force against all the photons bouncing around its outside to keep >them contained, so eventually you could rupture the ring by >putting enough photons into it. Either way, with electrons and photons, tunneling is also an issue. Thanks for the information about EM fields and superconductors, too. From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2907" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "20:22:24" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "120" "Re: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2907 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25904 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:23:46 -0800 (PST) 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 RAA25894 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id PDHFa03543 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:22:24 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <96541a13.36db3d50@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Modular Ship Design Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:22:24 EST Kelly, > -----Original Message----- > Since I had a centrafuge with rotating segments. The floor's can > move to the > sides front or rear as nessisary. Or for that mater you could > just flip the > hab segment over as you restack the modular ship? Flipping the whole hab was pretty much the way I saw it too, it is just the idea of doing this in flight at a significant fraction of light speed which bothers me. Actually I think the hab centrafuge ring makes more sence. After all the ship will have to spend its time at varing accelerations as it burns off fuel, and zero G as it floats in the target system. These can't be delt with by a fixed hab floor no mater how much you flip it. > By picking Lithum-proton as a fusion fuel, I figured we could do > without tanks > at all since the fuel is a structural metal. So the drive system is > effectivly a tug pushing a huge (or small depending) solid block of metal. > Wrap yourself in it for shielding, stack it in frount for easy > shoving, maybe > even use it for structural supports. It would probably need to be pelletized before it could be sent into the reactor/engine. Just as easy to build a giant tank and fill it full of lithium pellets. A lithium block can be cut and pressed into pellets, but a mile long tank of pellets would be a serious structural problem under acceleration. > I don't worry as much about burn time limits, but with the fuel > carry limits > we have a prett much fixed upper speed limit. I'ld rather get to > it quickly, > not speed half the flight geting to speed. I don't see this at all. Given: Scenario A Scenario B 1 G thrust 1 G thrust 3 month burn 3 year burn Then delta v of Scenario A is less than delta v of Scenario B, and total trip time of Scenario A is greater than Scenario B. The only constraining factor is can we carry sufficient propellant to maintain continuous thrust? (There is also the little problem that B requires more engine than A as well...) You missed the part of my statement about fuel constraint. A given weight of fuel, only has the energy to accelerate the ship to a given delta-V. It doesn't make much difference (speed wise) if it burns all the fuel quickly, or slowly. So I figure at 1 g my fusion systems could get you about 4-5 months of total thrust. If we didn't have the fuel/delta-V limitation then a continuous 1-G burn for the flight would be great. In about a year you'ld be presses light speed, and Alph-C would be under 3 years away ship time. But we don't have that kind of power. Given we haven't come up with anyway other then fusion that we could really decelerate into or out of the target system. (I'm very dubious about anti- matter, and the limited details of its control and use I've heard.) We're limited by the credable delta-V a fusion powered drive can give us. Lee Parker Kelly From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1161" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "20:38:30" "-0500" "Curtis L. Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "24" "starship-design: solar sail" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1161 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02320 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:39:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA02289 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.98.124]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with ESMTP id <19990302013849.CMZR29907@worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 01:38:49 +0000 Message-ID: <36DB4116.B828C35F@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Curtis L. Manges" From: "Curtis L. Manges" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: solar sail Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 20:38:30 -0500 In discussions of solar/laser sail systems, the question of braking at destination seems to be a problem which hasn't been resolved. It has occurred to me that perhaps the sail can be physically reshaped to permit some braking, without having to turn the ship around. First of all, since catenaries waste energy, I see the best sail design as a flat panel, for maximum rearward reflection of the beam. Think of a bicycle wheel: a thin, light outer rim, with cables in place of rigid spokes, the reflecting material stretched across these, and the payload package at the hub. Fire your moon-based laser cannon, and away it goes. Near arrival, the shape changes (requiring the services of the Mad Topologist) to something more like a half-folded umbrella, with a middle concentric section of the sail being removed, and the inner and outer concentric sail sections forming a mirror system which sends the laser beam on ahead of you, hopefully providing some reverse pressure. Think of a simple periscope to envision the ray paths. Of course, this doesn't help you get back home again, but it might be okay for a one-way robot explorer. What think ye? Curtis From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1813" "Monday" "1" "March" "1999" "21:06:33" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: Wild thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "3" 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 VAA07024 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA06991 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA02418 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25355; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14043.29145.556347.428315@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000501be63f2$e684f060$0101a8c0@claymore> References: <14041.48398.164803.737615@tzadkiel.efn.org> <000501be63f2$e684f060$0101a8c0@claymore> X-Mailer: VM 6.68 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Wild thoughts Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:06:33 -0800 (PST) L. Clayton Parker writes: > Steve, > > This last response of yours reminds me of something that has been nagging at > me for a few weeks now. > > > -----Original Message----- > > One amusing feature of relativistic kinematics is that while one > > photon is massless, two or more photons treated together as a > > system usually aren't (unless they are all traveling in exactly > > the same direction). So, for example, if you could create a > > fiber-optic ring and pump a large amount of laser light into it, > > you would make it heavier; ...[clip] > > It seems to me that there isn't any real difference between a supermassive > ring rotating at the speed of light and a great deal of energy rotating at > the speed of light. Although it would probably require more energy than we > can possibly generate to actually produce the sorts of space warps predicted > by theory, I would think that we should be able measure some effect inside > the ring of modern accelerators. Has anybody ever checked for some > measurable phenomenon such as frame dragging or such? There is a difference; a supermassive ring can't rotate at the speed of light. Nothing but photons, gravity waves, and a few massless particles can go at the speed of light. I actually have no idea whether a huge bunch of photons circulating in a ring would produce general relativistic frame dragging. Modern particle accelerators only work on very tiny amounts of mass, so I doubt any such effects would be measurable with them. My hypothetical fiber-optic ring would require something like 9e10 J of photons (that's a megawatt of power pumped into it for a little over a day) circulating in it to increase in mass by a microgram. Any real material would vaporize long before you could get that much energy into it. From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1918" "Tuesday" "2" "March" "1999" "05:23:30" "-0800" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: solar sail" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1918 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA02494 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:22:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from send105.yahoomail.com (send105.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.128]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA02477 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:22:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19990302132330.12340.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send105.yahoomail.com; Tue, 02 Mar 1999 05:23:30 PST 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 Subject: Re: starship-design: solar sail Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:23:30 -0800 (PST) "Curtis L. Manges" wrote: > > In discussions of solar/laser sail systems, the question of braking at > destination seems to be a problem which hasn't been resolved. It has > occurred to me that perhaps the sail can be physically reshaped to > permit some braking, without having to turn the ship around. Yeah, nanotech power!!!(or big machinery) > First of all, since catenaries waste energy, I see the best sail design > as a flat panel, for maximum rearward reflection of the beam. Think of a > bicycle wheel: a thin, light outer rim, with cables in place of rigid > spokes, the reflecting material stretched across these, and the payload > package at the hub. Fire your moon-based laser cannon, and away it goes. Why not a kite like shape?? > Near arrival, the shape changes (requiring the services of the Mad > Topologist) to something more like a half-folded umbrella, with a middle > concentric section of the sail being removed, and the inner and outer > concentric sail sections forming a mirror system which sends the laser > beam on ahead of you, hopefully providing some reverse pressure. Think > of a simple periscope to envision the ray paths. You can also use a second mirror in front of the big one. You'd have to make a hole in the center of the principal reflector, but that'd be easier than reshaping it... So, when you want to brake, you do a hole in the middle of the principal reflector, so that the laser beam passes though and reflects to the main reflector... > Of course, this doesn't help you get back home again, but it might be > okay for a one-way robot explorer. Well, the other planet's got a sun too... You could also build a laser on the planet (or in orbit around the sun) == Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["549" "Tuesday" "2" "March" "1999" "08:52:52" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: solar sail" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 549 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18567 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18551 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p245.gnt.com [204.49.91.5]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA03883; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:57:54 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01be64bc$59341f90$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <36DB4116.B828C35F@worldnet.att.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Curtis L. Manges" , Subject: RE: starship-design: solar sail Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:52:52 -0600 Curtis, Sorry, using the simple periscope arrangement you describe, net thrust equals zero. > -----Original Message----- > Near arrival, the shape changes (requiring the services of the Mad > Topologist) to something more like a half-folded umbrella, with a middle > concentric section of the sail being removed, and the inner and outer > concentric sail sections forming a mirror system which sends the laser > beam on ahead of you, hopefully providing some reverse pressure. Think > of a simple periscope to envision the ray paths. Lee Parker From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2553" "Tuesday" "2" "March" "1999" "08:52:54" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "67" "RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2553 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18624 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18618 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p245.gnt.com [204.49.91.5]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA03889; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:57:56 -0600 Message-ID: <000d01be64bc$5a0b93d0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <96541a13.36db3d50@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:52:54 -0600 Kelly, > -----Original Message----- > Actually I think the hab centrafuge ring makes more sence. After > all the ship > will have to spend its time at varing accelerations as it burns > off fuel, and > zero G as it floats in the target system. These can't be delt > with by a fixed > hab floor no mater how much you flip it. Granted, once you get there you will probably still have to spin the hab ring anyway. > A lithium block can be cut and pressed into pellets, but a mile > long tank of > pellets would be a serious structural problem under acceleration. Probably true. > You missed the part of my statement about fuel constraint. A > given weight of > fuel, only has the energy to accelerate the ship to a given delta-V. It > doesn't make much difference (speed wise) if it burns all the > fuel quickly, or > slowly. So I figure at 1 g my fusion systems could get you about > 4-5 months of total thrust. No I didn't miss it. I wasn't holding the mass of the fuel constant, I was adding MORE fuel to compensate which is whay I said it required more engine since adding fuel increases vehicle mass, in order to maintain a constant acceleration you have to increase thrust, which means you consume more fuel, etc. but it does work out in the math. > If we didn't have the fuel/delta-V limitation then a continuous > 1-G burn for > the flight would be great. In about a year you'ld be presses > light speed, and > Alph-C would be under 3 years away ship time. BINGO! That was my point. > But we don't have that kind of power. It isn't about power, it is about fuel. > Given we haven't come up with anyway other then fusion that we > could really > decelerate into or out of the target system. (I'm very dubious > about anti- > matter, and the limited details of its control and use I've heard.) We're > limited by the credable delta-V a fusion powered drive can give us. Again, it isn't about power, it is fuel, delta v is NOT acceleration, which is a limit of the engine. delta v is how long you can MAINTAIN that acceleration which is a function of how much fuel you can burn. The thing to remember is that we CAN get there today, at an outrageous fuel cost, using nothing more than fusion engines. We might be able to get there tomorrow, at a lower fuel cost with a hybrid engine. Lee Parker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad. - Dave Barry From VM Tue Mar 2 09:51:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1114" "Tuesday" "2" "March" "1999" "10:03:05" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1114 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28371 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:58:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA28351 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:58:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin37.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.37]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27361 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:58:35 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36DC19C9.49023833@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <96541a13.36db3d50@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" From: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:03:05 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Flipping the whole hab was pretty much the way I saw it too, it is just the > > idea of doing this in flight at a significant fraction of light speed which > > bothers me. > Turuning moving Flipping at any speed makes no differnce, you still are in free fall conditions. > Given we haven't come up with anyway other then fusion that we could really > decelerate into or out of the target system. (I'm very dubious about anti- > matter, and the limited details of its control and use I've heard.) We're > limited by the credable delta-V a fusion powered drive can give us. > The current problem with antimatter is not storing it, but getting it made. Don't forget the habitat area must also counter out the force of the thrust some how. The thust needs to 1 G no more or less since one must use it to act as gravity for the ship. The habitat areas could be like large buckets on arms. @ | guy standing. ---- thrust-> --- no thrust ---- thrust <- | | SPIN | [--@] [ @ ] [@--] [ | ] Ben. From VM Tue Mar 2 12:36:14 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["226" "Tuesday" "2" "March" "1999" "14:23:15" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 226 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA18816 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA18788 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p235.gnt.com [204.49.89.235]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA05653; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:28:06 -0600 Message-ID: <000e01be64ea$805101f0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <36DC19C9.49023833@jetnet.ab.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ben Franchuk (Woodelf)" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:23:15 -0600 Ben, > -----Original Message----- > Turuning moving Flipping at any speed makes no differnce, you > still are in > free > fall conditions. I know, in fact according to Relativity, it isn't even moving... . Lee Parker From VM Wed Mar 3 15:52:00 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["976" "Wednesday" "3" "March" "1999" "18:45:51" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: Re: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 976 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17926 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:47:21 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA17913 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id KOJNa19778 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Modular Ship Design Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:51 EST >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> Flipping the whole hab was pretty much the way I saw it too, it is just the >> >> idea of doing this in flight at a significant fraction of light speed which >> >> bothers me. > > Turuning moving Flipping at any speed makes no > differnce, you still are in free fall conditions. But at relatavistic speeds the ion impacts from the frount get VERY dangerous. >> Given we haven't come up with anyway other then fusion that we could really >> decelerate into or out of the target system. (I'm very dubious about anti- >> matter, and the limited details of its control and use I've heard.) We're >> limited by the credable delta-V a fusion powered drive can give us. > > The current problem with antimatter is not storing it, > but getting it made. We at least know how to make it anf presum,ably could up the production rates to whatever we needed. However storing thousands to hundreds of thousands of tons of anti-matter. Kelly From VM Wed Mar 3 15:53:19 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1288" "Wednesday" "3" "March" "1999" "18:45:27" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: solar sail" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1288 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19327 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:51:06 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA19290 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id VJJNa19778 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5c793b6a.36ddc997@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: solar sail Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:27 EST > In discussions of solar/laser sail systems, the question > of braking at destination seems to be a problem which > hasn't been resolved. It has occurred to me that perhaps > the sail can be physically reshaped to permit some > braking, without having to turn the ship around.=== Boy did we discus this. This was a major issue. If you had major maser / laser stations at each end a sail could go fast as hell. But decelerating it was about impossible. Your periscope like light path turn out not to work. Forward in his Roche world series suggested you drop a mirror sail that reflects the beam back as the mirror is blasted away (REAL! impractical). I suggested something like your periscope deal with microwaves, but reflected backwards off a plasma mirror. The plasma is lost but the beam is refleacted back in a way that could decel the ship.. I think. My Fuel/Sail ideas a good compramise. The fusion fuel you'll need to decelerate into the target system is spun out into filiments and wolven out intoa huge microwave sail. You boost out with the sail. Decel later with the fusion fuel (you collect in the sail during the flight). Boost back with fuel mined in system, and use a small sail to decel into Sol. You could get up to 40% of light speed that way. Kelly From VM Wed Mar 3 16:03:08 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1193" "Wednesday" "3" "March" "1999" "18:45:43" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1193 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23846 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:56:25 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA23771 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id DNJNa19778 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Modular Ship Design Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:43 EST X-From: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Clayton Parker) To: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Kelly, > -----Original Message----- ===== > You missed the part of my statement about fuel constraint. A > given weight of > fuel, only has the energy to accelerate the ship to a given delta-V. It > doesn't make much difference (speed wise) if it burns all the > fuel quickly, or > slowly. So I figure at 1 g my fusion systems could get you about > 4-5 months of total thrust. No I didn't miss it. I wasn't holding the mass of the fuel constant, I was adding MORE fuel to compensate which is whay I said it required more engine since adding fuel increases vehicle mass, in order to maintain a constant acceleration you have to increase thrust, which means you consume more fuel, etc. but it does work out in the math. I think I figured out that to get a .4C delta-V you needed something like a 40-100 to 1 fuel ratio. (hence my interest in a no tank fuel). That only gets you about 4 months at 1G. Magnifiing that to get more delta-v would require stagering fuel quantities! The engines might need to wiegh an order of mag more then the unfueled ship! Kelly From VM Wed Mar 3 16:03:08 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1501" "Wednesday" "3" "March" "1999" "18:45:13" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "77" "Re: Re: starship-design: Genuine STR question" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1501 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19008 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:50:22 -0800 (PST) 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 PAA18967 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id GDJNa19778 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Genuine STR question Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:13 EST Kelly, > > Even AIMSTAR has more waste heat than that. > > One of the Reason I like the Bussard reactor designs. Although not currently practicable, I prefer the Bussard design myself. > > KW! A house takes KW. These engines would be at least pumping around K > megawatts. I think you mistook what I was saying. Current designs all rely on some fusion or antimatter based engine, the particular engine is irrelevant. All of these engines require some sort of massive energy hog system to either initiate or contain the reaction, in many cases both. So the engine requires we have gigawatts of power already available just to light the fire so to speak. My point was: a) recovery of waste heat is probably an insignificant factor at these power levels, and b) any generator capable of providing us with gigawatts to start and run the engines, can spare a few kW or even mW to run shipboard systems such as electronics, heat, air conditioning, etc. I know - thats what I ment. I'm saying if that KW isn't enough to run the air conditioning and stuff in a house. Thats not going to run the life support of a starship. >From a purely engineering point of view, the better the engine, the less waste heat we would have, therefore even less would be available for recovery to provide shipboard power. At the moment though, this isn't the case. Current systems are so inefficient that there is actually quite a bit left over as waste heat. Lee Parker Kelly From VM Thu Mar 4 13:28:19 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15769" "Thursday" "4" "March" "1999" "15:19:20" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "363" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Probs., Roton Rollout PR, SAU 80" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 15769 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05729 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA05675 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:24:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p234.gnt.com [204.49.89.234]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA31330 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:24:08 -0600 Message-ID: <000401be6684$aacfbd90$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Probs., Roton Rollout PR, SAU 80 Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:19:20 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 3:52 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: X-33 Probs., Roton Rollout PR, SAU 80 Contents: * X-33 Hydrogen Tank Problems and Schedule Slip * Roton Rollout Press Release * X-33 Launch Site Briefing Set for March 5 * Space Access Update no. 80 ======================================================================== >From Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 25, 1999, pp. 46-47, "Bonding Bugs Delay X-33's First Flight" by Michael A. Dornheim. "First flight of the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit testbed has slipped by 4-7 months due to delamination of the composite sandwich structure of a liquid hydrogen tank during an autoclave cycle. "The problem raises questions about being able to reliably manufacture large sandwich structures, and the ability to non-destructively test the bond strength between the face and sheet core. The lightweight tank is key to achieving single-stage-to-orbit performance." * Delamination of the tank wall occurred on the left-hand tank Dec. 23. * The tank wall had passed ultrasound tests prior to the delamination. * A replacement tank wall should be completed by March 25. * Cost of this incident and its fix is to be under $5 million. * The right-hand hydrogen tank has already been completed. * Program schedule slipped one year because of incidents occurring between October and December 1998. * First launch is now expected somewhere between April and July 2000. ======================================================================== From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: Rotary Rocket Company Debuts Affordable Space Vehicle Followup-To: sci.space.policy Date: 3 Mar 1999 17:33 UT Rotary Rocket Company Rotary Rocket Company Debuts Affordable Space Vehicle MOJAVE, Calif., March 1, 1999 -- The Rotary Rocket Company today unveiled a full-scale demonstrator of its Roton space vehicle before a crowd of 1,200 people, including top officials of NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Novelist Tom Clancy, a member of the company's board of directors, said the Roton ``is going to change the world'' by dramatically reducing the cost of putting satellites and eventually passengers into orbit. ``It is our job as private citizens to make space happen, to make space where people work, and to make space the place where products are made,'' Clancy told the international media gathered to document the first public display of the Roton. The Roton is a completely reusable single-stage space vehicle that returns to its base in one piece, unlike old-style expendable launch vehicles that are thrown away on each trip. ``The Roton is designed to launch some of the 2,000 satellites scheduled to be put into orbit over the next decade, a market worth $50 billion,'' said Gary C. Hudson, president and CEO of the company. Follow-on vehicles will serve the space passenger market. Patti Grace Smith, who is responsible for licensing private spaceships as the associate administrator of the FAA, said ``I would like to congratulate the entire Rotary Rocket team on this momentous occasion of the roll-out of the Roton ATV and wish them the very best as they write this new chapter in space history.'' Dr. Daniel Mulville, NASA's Chief Engineer, said the space agency welcomed the innovations that entrepreneurial companies were bringing to the space launch marketplace. ``We encourage your continued efforts to achieve your goal of becoming a commercial reusable launch vehicle company. It is your goal, and it is our goal as well,'' Dr. Mulville said. ``This is truly a significant event as we move toward the 21st century and realize the vision of low-cost access to space provided by the commercial sector.'' The Roton demonstrator that debuted today, the Atmospheric Test Vehicle (ATV), will begin flight tests later this month from the Mojave Airport. The ATV will carry out low-altitude tests to gather data about the performance of its unique rotor-blade landing system. The ATV is similar in concept to the Space Shuttle Enterprise that NASA built to analyze the landing characteristics of its vehicle before building orbital versions. Following the ATV flight tests, Rotary Rocket Company will begin construction of two Prototype Test Vehicles (PTVs) for orbital flight tests next year. Commercial delivery of communications satellites and other cargoes to low Earth orbit (150 miles altitude) will follow in 2001. Roton's ability to launch satellites at low cost will benefit consumers through affordable high-speed Internet connections via satellite, less-expensive satellite telephones, and cheaper television programming via satellite. Existing expendable launchers are expensive, costing $2,000 to $5,000 per pound of cargo, and they fail at a rate of about one launch in ten, resulting in the destruction of the satellite payloads. Rotary Rocket will charge only $1,000 a pound (or less for multiple launch purchases) and the Roton is designed to land intact in the event of most equipment malfunctions. The Roton's two pilots are a key safety feature because they will be able to override Roton's automatic systems if they fail to respond appropriately to unexpected flight conditions. The Roton airframe and tankage are built by Scaled Composites, founded by aviation legend Burt Rutan, creator of the first round-the-world aircraft, the Voyager. Rotary Rocket is developing Roton's high-efficiency rotary rocket engine, its landing rotors and its avionics. Rotary Rocket Company is headquartered in Redwood City, Calif. For information contact Geoffrey Hughes, director of business development, at 650-298-3300, or visit the Web site at www.rotaryrocket.com. ======================================================================== From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: X-33 Launch Site Briefing Set For March 5 Followup-To: sci.space.policy Date: 3 Mar 1999 17:44 UT Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC March 3, 1999 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 256/544-0031) Fred Brown Dryden Flight Research Center, CA (Phone: 661/258-2663) Ellen Bendell Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, CA (Phone: 661/572-4155) NOTE TO EDITORS: N99-12 X-33 LAUNCH SITE BRIEFING SET FOR MARCH 5 NASA and Lockheed Martin X-33 program officials will brief news media about the completion of construction on the X-33 launch site and its operations at 1 p.m. EST on Friday, March 5. The briefing will originate from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, and will be broadcast on NASA Television. Scheduled to participate in the briefing are: * Steve Ishmael, NASA X-33 deputy program manager for operations, Palmdale, CA * Carl Meade, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works X-33 manager for flight assurance, Palmdale, CA Construction of the 30-acre, $32 million X-33 Flight Operations Center began in November 1997 and was completed in just a little more than 12 months, on time and under budget. This unique facility marks a dramatic departure from traditional launch sites. Designers took advantage of lessons learned over years of operating launch sites and aircraft facilities to create a complex that supports aircraft-like operations for a launch vehicle, which in turn supports the NASA X-33 program's overall goal of low-cost access to space. The X-33 is a half-scale, suborbital technology demonstrator of a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) Lockheed Martin calls the VentureStar. The goal of the program is to demonstrate advanced technologies that will dramatically increase launch vehicle reliability and lower the cost of putting a pound of payload into space from $10,000 to $1,000. Currently being developed by NASA and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA, the X-33 is scheduled for a series of 15 flight tests beginning in mid-2000. It eventually will fly at speeds between Mach 13 and 15 and at an altitude of 60 miles to prove its technologies and systems. NASA Television is available on GE-2, Transponder 9C at 85 degrees West longitude, vertical polarization, with a frequency of 3880 MHz and audio of 6.8 MHz. News media will be able to ask questions of the program representatives from participating NASA Centers. - end - Note to television editors: NASA will uplink launch-site construction b-roll, and will debut new, extremely high-fidelity computer animation of the X-33 launch and landing with the televised briefing. ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:28:36 -0500 (EST) From: Donald L Doughty To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #80 2/28/99 (fwd) Sender: delta-clipper-approval@world.std.com Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #80 2/28/99 Copyright 1999 by Space Access Society __________________________________________________________________ 1998 was a year of transition for the space industry, a year of the slow build of a number of trends, good and bad. Now that we're well into 1999, some of these trends have reached or passed the point where we think attention is required. We're back. But we're also waaaaay behind. Look for stories in an upcoming Update on X-33's growing problems, the revived Breaux Bill (just reintroduced as S.469), NASA Future-X's first major flight vehicle project, Military Spaceplane's continuing survival, the latest in the commercial expendable and reusable launch fields, and FAA AST's progress toward new operating regulations for commercial RLV's. But before that, coming in SAU #81, SAS's four key policy priorities for 1999: Fixing the Breaux Bill, funding a new Future-X reusable rocket operations demonstrator, funding some growth in MSP, and what to do about X-33. That Update awaits only some final tweaks. __________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society Notes - Space Access '99 Conference Set For April 23-24 in Phoenix - A Word From SAS's Executive Director (On Our Low '98 Profile) __________________________________________________________________ Just a quick note - Rotary Rocket Company will officially roll out their ATV (Atmosphere Test Vehicle landing-mode demonstrator) tomorrow, Monday March 1st, at 11 am pacific time (2 pm eastern). Catch the live webcast at http://www.rollout.org, check http://www.rotaryrocket.com for details. __________________________________________________________________ - Space Access '99 Conference Set For April 23-24 in Phoenix We're off to a late start organizing and publicizing SA'99 this year, due to our old hotel being redeveloped and due to health problems over the winter. But there are still two months to go - plenty of time to book flights, reserve rooms, and sign up! Space Access '99 hospitality and registration open at 6 pm Thursday April 22nd 1999, rooms 100 and 102 (off the pool deck) at the Quality Inn South Mountain, 5121 E LaPuente Ave - go about ten miles east on I-10 from the Phoenix Airport, turn right off the Elliot Road exit, take your first right onto 51st Ave, then the next right to the hotel (just past the Wells Fargo branch.) Intro sessions will run from 8 pm to 10 pm Thursday. Main sessions will run all day Friday the 23rd and Saturday the 24th, with post- dinner sessions both days. Registration and SA'99 Hospitality will be open by 8 am Friday and Saturday. The speakers list is starting to shape up - some fine "yes's", including Max Hunter, Rotary Rocket, Pioneer Rocketplane, Universal Space Lines, and Space Access LLC, plus strong "maybe's" from a whole bunch more who we intend to pin down in the next week or two, plus some interesting surprise long shots we're working. It'll once again be a cross-section of who's who in the emerging low-cost launch industry, presenting an informal snapshot of where things are this spring of 1999. (Be there or miss out - part of our relaxed atmosphere and up-to-the-second inside information is that we don't ask for formal papers and we don't do proceedings.) Our new hotel is the Quality Inn South Mountain, about ten miles from the Phoenix Airport via "Super Shuttle" van, in a quiet tree- lined suburban neighborhood, with a half-dozen restaurants within easy walking distance, within a mile of the world-class Pointe South Mountain's resort golf and riding stables. We were able to work out a good deal with the Quality Inn, with room rates of $59/$69/$79 plus a location for our famous Space Access Hospitality Suite (yes, Eileen and the gang will be back) right across the pool deck walkway from our presentation hall. The $59/$69/$79 gets you a "standard", "deluxe", or "business class" room - "standard" is pretty nice, "deluxe" is similar but very recently redone, "business class" has some extras. Call (602) 893-3900 for reservations and mention "Space Access" for the rate. Book right away if you can - this is a new hotel for us, and the more rooms we have booked early, the easier it is to wheedle favors from the hotel to make it a better conference. Space Access '99 registration is $100 if received by Wednesday April 21st, $120 at the door, $10 off for SAS members ($30 for one year's membership), mail checks to SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044. See you there! __________________________________________________________________ RE SAS's low profile last year, a short personal note from yr obdt servant the Executive Director... I began 1998 just a little burnt burnt out after a decade in the trenches of the cheap access wars, unable to summon much energy for anything short of major priorities. That passed, between rest and the increasingly obvious fact that we hadn't won this battle of ideas yet after all - our spacefaring future is still very much in doubt. By autumn of last year, I was ready to charge back into the fray, except for one minor problem - I was totally unable to summon the concentration needed to write clearly about this complex scene. I could see no reason for this; I thought I was going nuts. To make a long story short, last month I was diagnosed with Lyme disease, a nasty tick-borne bug that gradually, stealthily makes you feel like forty-two going on ninety-two. The good news is, a lot of the symptoms clear up fast once treatment begins - it was like someone turned on the lights again. I still tire easily and likely will limit travel for a while, but I'm back at work. And not a moment too soon; things are getting interesting once again... To those of you who went on supporting SAS this last year despite our low profile, my heartfelt thanks. Henry Vanderbilt ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein ======================================================================== From VM Thu Mar 4 13:28:19 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1767" "Thursday" "4" "March" "1999" "15:19:25" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1767 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05755 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:24:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA05727 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p234.gnt.com [204.49.89.234]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA31343; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:24:13 -0600 Message-ID: <000501be6684$ae4471f0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:19:25 -0600 Kelly, > -----Original Message----- > I think I figured out that to get a .4C delta-V you needed > something like a > 40-100 to 1 fuel ratio. (hence my interest in a no tank fuel). > That only gets > you about 4 months at 1G. Magnifying that to get more delta-v > would require > staggering fuel quantities! The engines might need to weigh an > order of mag > more then the unfueled ship! Yep! I was in fact expecting fuel ratios around 400 to 1 even using second generation ACMF (AIMSTAR) which with a fuel ratio of only 4 to 1 can get to 0.35% C (Reference: http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/AIMSTAR/AIMSTAR-98-3404_04.html). If we use the table on this page as a starting point, then we can assume that raising the fuel mass by a factor of 100 while holding payload mass constant would give us a final cruise velocity of 35.0% c. The only problem here is that even AIMSTAR does not provide 1 g of acceleration (more like 0.1 g). However, thirty or forty years from now could be quite a different story. It is possible through a combination of minor (single order of magnitude) improvements and the use of multiple engines (another order of magnitude) to get up to 1 g of acceleration even out of AIMSTAR. I have never seen the figures for VASIMIR, they were apparently yanked from the web soon after they were posted. But I get the impression that although it is ready for flight testing, its PEAK performance is probably not as high as what was expected of the first ACMF design. Given the trip times to Mars claimed in the NASA release, it just about exactly matches the ICAN II figures posted at Penn State. AIMSTAR is a second generation _concept_ that significantly improves upon ICAN based upon the initial ICAN experiments carried out at JPL. Lee Parker From VM Thu Mar 4 15:45:23 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["729" "Thursday" "4" "March" "1999" "16:43:21" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "18" "starship-design: (AIMSTAR) stuff" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 729 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16502 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16484 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ben (dialin12.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.12]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06896 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:40:52 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199903042340.QAA06896@main.jetnet.ab.ca> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ben Franchuk" From: "Ben Franchuk" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: (AIMSTAR) stuff Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:43:21 -0700 > It is possible through a combination of minor (single order of magnitude) > improvements and the use of multiple engines (another order of magnitude) to > get up to 1 g of acceleration even out of AIMSTAR. I have never seen the > figures for VASIMIR, they were apparently yanked from the web soon after > they were posted. But I get the impression that although it is ready for > flight testing, its PEAK performance is probably not as high as what was Looking at the website, AIMSTAR is still a basic fusion drive,burning Hydrogen. The design of the reactor is light and simple, but other fusion drives may scale better for large ship designs. I see 25% improvements as a guess, but that goes for any fussion drive. Ben. From VM Thu Mar 4 16:58:42 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["320" "Thursday" "4" "March" "1999" "19:43:14" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 320 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18548 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:47:06 -0800 (PST) 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 QAA18540 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:47:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 0XJAa04798 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 19:43:14 +1900 (EST) Message-ID: <4a76b310.36df28a2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 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: Modular Ship Design Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 19:43:14 EST the table on this page as a starting point, then we can assume that raising the fuel mass by a factor of 100 while holding payload mass constant would give us a final cruise velocity of 35.0% c At 1 G accel, you'ld get to .35C in about 4 months, so your still not talking about constant G flight all the way. Kelly From VM Sun Mar 7 17:12:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["882" "Friday" "5" "March" "1999" "06:37:08" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: (AIMSTAR) stuff" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 882 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02646 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA02638 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA18150; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:41:59 -0600 Message-ID: <000d01be6704$e20e7140$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199903042340.QAA06896@main.jetnet.ab.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ben Franchuk" , Subject: RE: starship-design: (AIMSTAR) stuff Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:37:08 -0600 Ben, > -----Original Message----- > > get up to 1 g of acceleration even out of AIMSTAR. I have never seen the > > figures for VASIMIR, they were apparently yanked from the web soon after > > they were posted. But I get the impression that although it is ready for > > flight testing, its PEAK performance is probably not as high as what was > > Looking at the website, AIMSTAR is still a basic fusion drive,burning > Hydrogen. > The design of the reactor is light and simple, but other fusion > drives may > scale better for large ship > designs. I see 25% improvements as a guess, but that goes for any fussion > drive. Yes it is a fusion drive, I said so all along. It is however, a very light fusion drive, much lighter than anything else we have come up with, with performance figures that barely make it into the interstellar class. Nothing else yet does that. Lee Parker From VM Sun Mar 7 17:12:52 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["616" "Friday" "5" "March" "1999" "06:37:06" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 616 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02637 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA02626 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA18147; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:41:57 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01be6704$e12ac800$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <4a76b310.36df28a2@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:37:06 -0600 Kelly > -----Original Message----- > the table on this page as a starting point, then we can assume > that raising > > the fuel mass by a factor of 100 while holding payload mass constant would > > give us a final cruise velocity of 35.0% c > > At 1 G accel, you'd get to .35C in about 4 months, so your still > not talking > about constant G flight all the way. Of course not, not using only a 4 to 1 fuel ratio. That was why I said it would take more like 400 to 1. Ten engines burn fuel faster (that's 40 to 1) and we need to do it for 3 times longer and then reverse the process (that's 400 to 1) Lee Parker From VM Mon Mar 8 15:06:33 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11725" "Monday" "8" "March" "1999" "16:44:11" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "252" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 81 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11725 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA14539 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA14467 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p273.gnt.com [204.49.91.33]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA03558 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:49:40 -0600 Message-ID: <000201be69b5$2f3d0dc0$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 81 (fwd) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:44:11 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 3:34 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 81 (fwd) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:56:18 -0500 (EST) From: Donald L Doughty To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #81 3/5/99 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #81 3/5/99 Copyright 1999 by Space Access Society __________________________________________________________________ SAS 1999 Policy Priorities: - Breaux Bill Must Not Mandate Government-Selected Winners - Investor Tax Breaks Preferred Over Loan Guarantees - Fund New NASA Future-X Low-Cost Reusable Rocket Operations Demonstrator As Small Business Setaside - Add Funds To Keep USAF "Military Spaceplane" Work Alive - Finish and Fly X-33, Fund Overruns From VStar Demos If Needed __________________________________________________________________ SAS 1999 Policy Priorities Summary What effectiveness we as a movement have depends on our focussing our limited resources on a few clearcut issues where there's some reason to believe we can make a positive difference. We at SAS try to avoid the shotgun approach, lest we spread ourselves too thin and get nothing at all done. Here's our list of the four key things we're pushing for this year, with brief explanations. We'll be going into more depth as to why these (and why not others) in the discussion we expect this will provoke and in Updates to come. ** Breaux Bill Must Not Mandate Government-Selected Winners, ** ** Investor Tax Breaks Preferred Over Loan Guarantees ** We have mixed feelings on the Breaux Bill, introduced last year as S.2121, (Senate Bill number 2121) and just last week revived as S.469, to provide a Federal loan guarantee fund for low-cost space launch developers. On the one hand, we have a pretty good idea what NASA RLV contractor/consultant hired what lobbyist to foster the idea in Senator Breaux's office in the first place. On the other hand, that's water over the dam - last year's version of the Breaux Bill didn't pass (we described it at the time as "..a 'gimme' for Lockheed-Martin's 'Venturestar' Shuttle replacement [or] for a.. ...rebuild/upgrade of the current Space Shuttle...") and this year's version is just starting through the legislative mill. A year later, we do have to concede that the original Breaux Bill did have one point: "..lack of sufficient private-sector financing has already proven to be a major obstacle [to commercial low-cost launch developers.]" Private investment in reusable space launch is still very hard to come by, and we would likely support government action to improve the investment climate. IF, that is, said government action does NOT call for the government to pick winners. This new Breaux Bill (named for its sponsor, Senator John Breaux, D Louisiana) is improved somewhat over last year's version, but it still has a fundamental flaw: Whether it's NASA or DOT evaluating proposals, as Alan Greenspan recently pointed out in another context, in the current climate we simply cannot assume high-stakes economic decisions won't become politicized. Then too, the rocket industry is in a technological transition comparable to the changeover from sail to steam. Even a (miraculously) totally non-politicized government panel of space- launch experts would right now be primarily made up of the space-age equivalent of sailing-ship experts - hardly in a position to make sensible decisions about commercial steamship proposals. In times like these, we believe strongly that the market is the only reliable winner-picking mechanism: Individual investors, making the best-informed decisions they can, spurred on by an overall market- wide even-handed government incentive. If the new Breaux Bill is to succeed in fostering a rapid-growth US low-cost launch industry, it cannot rely on any branch of the Federal government to pick aerospace winners. Doing so on evidence of recent history will result in massive boondoggles, hurting the very industry we're trying to help. We have looked at ways to set up loan guarantees that don't require Federal winner-picking, and aside from the possibility of a strict matching-funds standard, where the government guarantees X dollars for each dollar of upfront private non-guaranteed investment, no other qualifications required, we've come up dry. We strongly urge that the Congress consider modest tax incentives that pass immediately through to investors as a method of encouraging investment without divorcing investment decisions from rational commercial due diligence requirements. (We recommend that this approach be pushed especially vigorously on the House side, as being more receptive at the moment to tax-cut proposals than the Senate.) ** Fund New NASA Future-X Low-Cost Reusable Rocket Ops ** ** Demonstrator As Small Business Setaside ** NASA's Future-X program has taken a significant step towards better/faster/cheaper reusable-rocket aerospace advances with the contract award to Boeing for the X-37 "ATV" reusable upper stage/reentry vehicle. We think it's time Future-X got started on a second flight-vehicle project, one that will explore the other half of the reusable ground-to-orbit operations envelope - takeoffs, landings, high-speed flight, and fast low-cost ground turnarounds. In order to keep this project affordable within the Future-X context, $100 million or so total over the life of the project, the criteria for this project should specify use of existing engines and the minimum necessary new technology overall. This should be a reusable rocket operations demonstrator, not a whizbang new-technology development pusher. The selection criteria should not specify takeoff or landing mode, nor propellant choice. The primary criteria should be how often the vehicle flies, how cheaply and simply and reliably, out of how austere and flexible a site or sites. (Part of "reliably" should include at minimum long-lead spares for a second flight vehicle plus credible plans to build this second copy of the vehicle on short notice - we suggest six months - at need.) Secondary (NOT primary) criteria should include how high fast and far the vehicle flies. Double-digit mach numbers are good, long distance overland flight is good, but moderate advantages in speed or range should not override operability considerations in the selection. "Reliably" should also include some secondary weighting in favor of piloted vehicles, at least for flights outside the bounds of government test ranges, if not full-time. The recent record is that initial flight tests of unmanned vehicles often fail disastrously because autonomous flight control systems are very difficult and expensive to get right the first time. History also suggests that high speed long distance overland flight can be considerably safer if an operator is right there to deal with problems, not dependent on either long-range comm links or guessing the problem in advance and writing code to handle it. The selection criteria should also not specify any connection to hypothetical future operational space launch vehicles, beyond the bidder concepts' general scalability to medium-payload flexibly- based fast-turnaround space launch vehicles. We would like to see Congress provide $30 million this year - $10 million to support award of multiple phase 1 contracts, and $20 million to get the winner(s) off to a running start before the fiscal year is out. The primary winner should be funded up to $100 million over three years to build vehicles and fly an initial test program of a dozen or more flights, with (if things go well) the option for an additional flight program to explore system operations at high flight rates for an extended period. The program should include the option of selecting secondary winners to develop and demonstrate specific subsystems of interest. We want this program done as a small business setaside, specifically in order to help the struggling reusable rocket startup companies gain development and operations experience that could lead to viable commercially funded vehicles down the line. We want this program done as a cooperative agreement, in order to minimize the paperwork burden on the contractor(s) selected. We want it done with zero cash contractor contribution expected, since this program is aimed at helping startups that are short on capital, and since the vehicles involved should not be burdened with the additional requirement of generating commercial income to pay off investors within the short term. ** Add Funds To Keep USAF "Military Spaceplane" Work Alive ** The USAF MSP program continues to do good work on a shoestring in the area of X-40a flight envelope expansion, support of NASA Future- X's X-37 (aka X-40b) program, and of various low-cost space operations technologies. This January they finally received the $10 million we spent the last two years fighting for. Due to a general crunch in Air Force modernization funding, however, they've been once again zeroed out of next year's proposed budget. We would like to see $50 million added to the FY 2000 budget for USAF MSP, in large part to finance a second X-37 tail number, and in general to continue and modestly expand the useful work they've been doing. ** Finish and Fly X-33, Fund From VStar Tech Demos If Needed ** X-33 is in serious technical, schedule, and budget trouble. If Lockheed-Martin is capable of making X-33 fly at all, it will do so by our best current estimate almost two years late. The NASA portion of X-33 project funding is fixed and should stay so (we vehemently oppose any increase in this.) If nothing changes, Lockheed-Martin will very likely run out of money and stop work well before X-33 flies. However, roughly a third of X-33's overall $1.2 billion budget was originally earmarked to demonstrate hardware specific to Lockheed- Martin's proposed "Venturestar" Shuttle replacement. Given X-33's growing troubles, spending project money on Venturestar components makes zero sense. (We recommend strongly against any committment to Venturestar by *anyone* before we see whether Lockheed-Martin can build and fly the half-scale half-speed X-33 demo version.) Lockheed-Martin has overpromised and underperformed on X-33 from the start. Let them dip into the Venturestar demo money to cover the overruns and fly X-33, if they must. And if that still won't be enough to salvage their apparently ill-conceived approach, let them say so now, rather than waste more time and taxpayer dollars. __________________________________________________________________ Space Access '99 Conference Meet the people who'll be making cheap space access happen - come to Space Access '99, April 23-24 in Phoenix Arizona! See www.space- access.org for details. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote near-term radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited and in its entirety. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein From VM Sat Mar 13 15:16:51 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5204" "Friday" "12" "March" "1999" "09:31:23" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "97" "starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5204 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18683 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA18670 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 13689 invoked by uid 506); 12 Mar 1999 15:28:25 -0000 Received: from pm3-16.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.216) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 1999 15:28:25 -0000 Message-ID: <36E9334B.7F9D0495@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:31:23 -0600 And now, for something completely different. Down home in the lab, fetch a fine steel ring, and encase it in a toroidal tube of glass. Wind the glass torus with a helical wrap of superconductor. Feed in a little juice, and the steel ring levitates, to try to center itself in the field. The ring of steel contains the magnetic field, but with a constant field it will not rotate. Now if there is a periodic modulation imposed on the field, resonance conditions produce standing waves around the coil, and these will correspond to regions of varying magnetic saturation in the steel. A phase shift in the modulation will induce torque within the ring, giving motor action. Too rapid a modulation will make the superconductor lossy, and too intense a confining field will produce ferromagnetic saturation in the ring. Within these limits, motor and generator action may be achieved with this flywheel device. The use of a superconductor modulating coil may be most applicable to the larger groundside units, for the larger the coil, the lower the frequency may be used to produce an integral number of standing waves around it. This reduces loss, which is heat produced in the coil. To use a separate normal mode conductor as a stator winding, for the motor generator functions, is an acceptable technique for making ring flywheels in smaller sizes, for normal mode conductors lack the frequency limitations of superconductors. But to use normal mode conductors to establish the main ring field may be impractical, for very massive windings would be needed to produce a strong enough field to reinforce the metal microstructure. The energy stored within the field itself, available from the windings, may be quite large. I don't know how to affect the velocity of the ring any further, after the main ring current is ramped up to the saturation magnetism for the ring material. No further features can be induced in the magnetic structure of the material. Combined materials are discouraged, for the desired strength may be found only in pure material. Mechanical possibilities for further acceleration seem iffy, at such high rotational speeds, and the geometry is not encouraging for mechanical movers. For the present, we may consider the act of clamping the steel into saturation as setting the speed of the ring constant, for it is no longer available for either motor or generator action until the main coil current is reduced back down below the saturation level. Note that the saturation level does not have to limit the total strength of the magnetic field, which can also build up in the space surrounding the steel. After the steel ring has been accelerated to its maximum safe speed, further energy can be stored in the magnetic field. As noted, this excess magnetism must be withdrawn before the rotational energy of the ring can be tapped. The condition of ferromagnetic saturation sets the limit for the degree of strength enhancement in the metal. Grain shape and size largely determine yield characteristics for a metal under pure tension. The centrifugal force on the rotating ring translates completely to tension. Material selection is obviously critical to the operation of this device. Like any other flywheel, there is only one failure mode worth worrying about. Like in other high performance flywheels, rupture is an explosion, confined to one plane. Much effort should be exerted to avoid this eventuality, including getting really picky about the steel used, and the process by which it is produced. Even in terrestrial applications, I prefer use of a flywheel counterrotating couple, rather than isolated units. Particularly in vehicles, the gyroscopic effect can cause undesirable motions, which when compensated results in steadiness. Motors are now used with unbalanced rotation, but the gyroscopic effect of these flywheels is much more extreme. The saturation effect, by limiting the total amount of reinforcement steel can receive from a magnetic field, evidently prevents the truly gigantic rings I had at first envisioned. However, because this is a very general form of the electric engine, rotors will work ( in various modes ) even if they are paramagnetic or diamagnetic in their bulk properties. To see why, take the example of free space, good old high vacuum. Will the field be established? Sure. Will it be induced to rotate as the phase of the modulation is changed? Hard to say no; this is almost a definition from antenna theory. But will the fabric of space itself, its inertial coordinate system, be dragged around the circle? That question is perfectly moot, and depends entirely on your point of view. Well, vacuum wasn't such a good example after all. But any material which can be structured by a magnetic field, solid, liquid, or gas, will be induced to rotate, by the magnetic handles stuck into its bulk by the modulation field. Plasmas work particularly nicely: this is the tokamak, with a spin. For my really, really big models, it looks like I will need to go back to the storage ring concept, with the nifty spiral orbit sheath of electrons, serving as my windings. Johnny Thunderbird In Druid Woods http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird From VM Sat Mar 13 15:16:51 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["63" "Friday" "12" "March" "1999" "12:44:24" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "3" "RE: starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 63 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09781 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09764 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:49:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from claymore (p250.gnt.com [204.49.91.10]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA30397; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:49:37 -0600 Message-ID: <007a01be6cb8$59923950$0101a8c0@claymore> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <36E9334B.7F9D0495@nternet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Johnny Thunderbird" , "starship-design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:44:24 -0600 I think you just reinvented the air core motor.... Lee Parker From VM Mon Mar 15 15:12:31 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1619" "Monday" "15" "March" "1999" "17:04:20" "-0600" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1619 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00479 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.nternet.com ([207.204.32.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA00153 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12418 invoked by uid 506); 15 Mar 1999 23:01:08 -0000 Received: from pm3-19.nternet.com (HELO nternet.com) (207.204.32.219) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 1999 23:01:08 -0000 Message-ID: <36ED91F4.DC6DF756@nternet.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <007a01be6cb8$59923950$0101a8c0@claymore> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Johnny Thunderbird From: Johnny Thunderbird Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Clayton Parker" , starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Steel Ring Flywheel, Tabletop Scale Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:04:20 -0600 "L. Clayton Parker" wrote: > I think you just reinvented the air core motor.... > > Lee Parker No shit, Sherlock. That ain't the point. Well, for one thing, you can't use this for a motor, because no mechanical connection is feasible if your ring is fully wound with coils. Nor can you use it for a generator. It will not transduce external mechanical energy to or from electric power. That ain't the point. The point is the steel material. The lab setup is to make mild steel, a strong but conventional material, into a super strength material by holding it in a condition of full magnetic saturation. That makes your steel ring several times stronger than a ring of mild steel, putting it into the category of other superstrength materials such as silicon carbide or diamond. That means you can spin a relatively low cost flywheel, ( low cost compared to diamond, ) several times faster than you could spin a normal ring of mild steel, before it blows itself apart. That, in turn, means we have a high density energy storage device suitable for terrestrial use. With suitable precautions, needless to say. A battery for use Earthside. Are any bells ringing for you yet? This lab design is useless for a motor, and it's useless for a generator, but makes a damn fine flywheel and a pretty good gyroscope. Put power in, take power out, that's all you can do. But you can do that better than any other box the same size and weight. We're not doing antimatter today, and we're not doing fusion today. We could sure use a good battery. Here you go. Petulantly, Johnny Thunderbird http://www.dejanews.com/~liteage From VM Mon Mar 22 09:24:01 1999 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5282" "Sunday" "21" "March" "1999" "11:43:48" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "110" "starship-design: Fwd: Lunar Underground (SFF)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5282 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18994 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:44:25 -0800 (PST) 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 IAA18989 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv19.3) id zVEBa07229; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:43:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8754283b.36f521c4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_922034630_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 2.7 for Mac sub 3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, moschleg@erols.com, Sdudley6@aol.com, MARK.A.JENSEN@cpmx.saic.com, DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Lunar Underground (SFF) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:43:48 EST This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_922034630_boundary Content-ID: <0_922034630@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_922034630_boundary Content-ID: <0_922034630@inet_out.mail.nuc.net.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v58.13) with SMTP; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:51:35 -0500 Received: from lepton.nuc.net (lepton.nuc.net [204.49.61.5]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA13216; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from pm3-2-35.nuc.net (pm3-2-47.nuc.net [204.49.61.253]) by lepton.nuc.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA10216; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:51:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jcserep@nuc.net) Received: by pm3-2-35.nuc.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BE72D8.74BE8D20@pm3-2-35.nuc.net>; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:49:21 -0600 Message-ID: <01BE72D8.74BE8D20@pm3-2-35.nuc.net> From: John To: "'artemis@asi.org'" , "'president@asi.org'" , "'kokhMMM@aol.com'" , "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'lunar@sunsite.unc.edu'" , "'DSmith6439@aol.com'" To: "'nsshq@nss.org'" , "'dsfportree@aol.com'" , "'league@aol.com'" , "'schmitt@engr.wisc.edu'" , "'amon@gpl.com'" , "'mikecombs@aol.com'" To: "'info@appliedspace.com'" , "'dgump@lunacorp.com'" , "'jdunstan@lunacorp.com'" , "'abinder@mail.arc.nasa.gov'" , "'ask@krait.jpl.nasa.gov'" , "'u2mha@lepvax.gsfc.nasa.gov'" To: "'ghallison@aol.com'" , "'James.Hopkins@msfc.nasa.gov'" , "'staff@L5-development.com'" , "'rme@seds.lpl.arizona.edu'" , "'info@permanent.com'" , "'tps@mars.planetary.org'" To: "'space.access@space-access.org'" Cc: "'agimarc@alaska.net'" , "'MLockwd@aol.com'" Subject: Lunar Underground (SFF) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:43:52 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I am writing on behalf of the Space Frontier Foundation (www.space- frontier.org), a non-profit advocacy group which we hope you consider an ally. In light of the recent revival of interest in the Moon, especially regarding lunar ice deposits, some in our group have concluded the time may be right to create a "Lunar Underground" network. Modeled on the Mars Underground, which for years kept alive interest in Mars exploration (and which recently resulted in the Mars Society), a corresponding lunar group would have as its goal a permanent settlement on the Moon. The Underground would serve as a central point of contact and as a vehicle for transmitting information to those interested. We do not intend to duplicate the many fine efforts which already exist, nor to become a clearinghouse of information about the Moon. Rather, we want to be an action- oriented coordinating network of knowledgeable advocates who wish to integrate lunar activism into the rising tide of public interest, government funding and commercial ventures in space. Our group, the Foundation, has specialized in high-leverage action by committed, serious activists. We spun off the group ProSpace, whose annual "March Storm" next week will result in hundreds of face-to-face briefings of Congressional staffers regarding key space issues of pressing importance. The Foundation also sponsors the annual Space FrontierCon (lately held in Los Angeles), and is well-connected in media, policy & entertainment circles. The Foundation has not emphasized the Moon previously, but we are branching out as opportunities present themselves. Our president, Rick Tumlinson, suggested that we help stand up a Lunar Underground, and Mr. Alex Gimarc, one of our Advocates, has taken on that project. This message is to make initial contacts with likely interested parties, to solicit feedback and gauge interest. Our next step will be to contact the Mars Underground to ask them for Lessons Learned. We will then begin to gather materials, names, web page space, volunteers, etc. We may establish a large e-mail mailing list at a later time, but for now we are confining our contacts to those with a track record of serious advocacy. As a volunteer group, we have few professional organizers, and this e-mail is being sent by an engineer helping out in his spare time. We hope you have some for this project, too. Thank you. PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT: Alex Gimarc (agimarc@alaska.net) SECONDARY P.O.C.: John Cserep (jcserep@nuc.net) --part0_922034630_boundary--