From VM Sun Apr 2 15:18:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2319" "Saturday" "1" "April" "2000" "15:08:02" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "59" "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2319 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e31E90i03485 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (root@smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e31E8xI03473 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1072.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.48]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21006 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:08:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000401150802.007619bc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:08:02 +0100 Hi Tom, Some remarks on different letters. >Does the group have any thought, ideas, methods or machines to >solve the problem or know of others attempt or solution to answer >the question "How far is that star?" You mentioned the parallax method. You didn't like the idea to use the starship to deviate from the straight line towards the destination star. I suggest to sent out probes at right angles to the ship's direction of travel. These probes should contain similar equipment as the Hipparcos satellite that Steve mentioned. The probes may be expendible or not. They may even have their own smaller engine system, so that they can accelerate with the main starship. - - - - - - - - >Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. >to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I >accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). >Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. It actually is E(kinetic) = 1/2 m v^2 (Thus v squared.) (The momentum in classical physics indeed is defined as p = m v) - - - - - - - - >Cancellation of the gamma factor is common with the general rocket >equation as (gamma times mass times velocity)of payload=(gamma >times mass times velocity) of propellant. Although the respective >gamma variable are different letters the values calculated are the >same so as gamma subscript payload (gp)=gamma subscript(ge) exhaust >then ge/gp = 1 and makes the cancellation valid. >Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial >dimensions. The gamma used most often only depends on the variable called velocity. Furthermore it so simple that even I can remember it. gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] The velocity of the exhaust(propellant) is not at all equal to the velocity of the payload. Hence the two gammas ge and gp should be calculated with different v. You'll see that the ge and gp will not be the same, nor cancel each other out. - - - - - - - - >I have no desire to teach the mistaught and misbehaving Somehow I get the idea that this is told *to you* at several times in your life. Otherwise you might have realized that misunderstanding does not have to be a deliberate act (of misbehavior). Timothy From VM Mon Apr 3 09:56:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7006" "Sunday" "2" "April" "2000" "21:27:07" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "149" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7006 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e331RnL23286 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e331RmI23278 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.7a.37244a7 (3975); Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a.37244a7.26194d6b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:07 EDT In a message dated 4/1/00 7:10:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl writes: > Hi Tom, Hello Timothy, > Some remarks on different letters. > > >Does the group have any thought, ideas, methods or machines to > >solve the problem or know of others attempt or solution to answer > >the question "How far is that star?" > > You mentioned the parallax method. You didn't like the idea to use the > starship to deviate from the straight line towards the destination star. I > suggest to sent out probes at right angles to the ship's direction of > travel. These probes should contain similar equipment as the Hipparcos > satellite that Steve mentioned. > The probes may be expendible or not. They may even have their own smaller > engine system, so that they can accelerate with the main starship. Good thinking. Probes perpendicular to the line of travel is not a bad idea as long as the base of the triangle formed is long enough to permit accurate trigonometric calculations from the measured angle difference. With angles to close to 90 degrees and the distance calculation from trig tables of say 4 light years will actually measure 4 light years plus or minus 3 light years. Suggested probes sent to the star beforehand face the same problem of needing the distance beforehand before the energy requirements can used to launch the probe. I am not willing to wait for this type probe to send me back the data in 4 years before I can launch. Both type probes are not satisfactory to my way of thinking for when I reach the first star and find no suitable place to land I want to continue on to another star. Selection of which is limited by the number of probes launched from the limited mass of my ship. As I recall 50 years + or - 20 years ago the distance to the stars published in star tables was found to be off by a factor of two from a bad formula. I do not remember how the current star tables were derived by calculation or measured directly. I was looking for the information or a mechanical range finder I could depend on. Any more suggestions. > > - - - - - - - - > > >Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. > >to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I > >accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). > >Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. > > It actually is E(kinetic) = 1/2 m v^2 (Thus v squared.) You are correct. It has been years since I made the calculation of 1/2 ton needing to be converted to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to one-tenth light speed. I probably used the correct formula then and did not redo my calculation while currently discussing it. I then used the energy value calculated and plugged the value into E=Mc^2 to get the mass converted. I recommend any using my data to check my arithmetic and my formulas as I do on construction or test time. > > (The momentum in classical physics indeed is defined as p = m v) > > - - - - - - - - That is why the gamma calculation of .89 C times 5 tons of payload is not equal to 1/10 C times 100 tons of exhaust and therefore violates conservation of momentum as the momentum of the payload does not equal to the momentum of the exhaust even when gamma is used on the exhaust velocity as the gamma effect is a curve and not linear on a graph. At such times I throw out the formula out rather than the universal law of conservation of momentum as directed by Einstein. That formula is one of the gamma Lorenz transforms that Einstein made later corrections for with his derivations that I use in my calculations as Lorenz knew nothing of time dilation discovered by Einstein. > > >Cancellation of the gamma factor is common with the general rocket > >equation as (gamma times mass times velocity)of payload=(gamma > >times mass times velocity) of propellant. Although the respective > >gamma variable are different letters the values calculated are the > >same so as gamma subscript payload (gp)=gamma subscript(ge) exhaust > >then ge/gp = 1 and makes the cancellation valid. > > >Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spatial > >dimensions. > > The gamma used most often only depends on the variable called velocity. > Furthermore it so simple that even I can remember it. > > gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the equation fields (field defined as a plane surface like paper where all applicable sets of equations are listed available for problem solving). The correct ones uncommonly used are only the partial derivatives of the completed gamma I stated which when graphed on E Vs V axis and is an exponential curve with exponent of two and asymptote at the imaginary vertical line c. > > The velocity of the exhaust(propellant) is not at all equal to the velocity > of the payload. Hence the two gammas ge and gp should be calculated with > different v. You'll see that the ge and gp will not be the same, nor cancel > each other out. > > - - - - - - - - I repeat I can multiply both sides of an equation by the same variable or constant and the equation remains equal to solve the equation. As the complete gamma is a complex variable all variables must be filled not just velocity to conserve momentum. immediately after multiplying both sides by gamma I can cancel by dividing both sides by gamma canceling them out completely. Cancellation is understood to be 1(unity or singularity) and not zero and meaningless as thought by Steve. The equation returns to Me*Ve=Mp*Vp with 1 not shown but understood as Gp/Ge =1 > > >I have no desire to teach the mistaught and misbehaving > > Somehow I get the idea that this is told *to you* at several times in your > life. Otherwise you might have realized that misunderstanding does not have > to be a deliberate act (of misbehavior). Well said. No offense was meant. True any time in past I made the claim mass can exceed light speed the majority assumed it was because I did not know something they were taught and then try and proceed to teach me as they were taught without even listening to what I was taught by Einstein. The phrase mistaught I use quickly circumvents the common train of thought therefore changes the response and then both sides of the question can be examined reasonably. The phrase misbehaving I use as a last resort, when the debater failing to convince or provided credible source or proof resorts to name calling, character assassination and making unsubstantiated claims as I present only credible source and proofs. Misunderstanding I have no problem with so use and answer questions as best I can to clarify that misunderstood by the examiner or examinee even if it be me or they not understanding. Best regards, Tom > > > Timothy > From VM Mon Apr 3 16:00:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["268" "Monday" "3" "April" "2000" "23:47:05" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 268 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e33MlBj15656 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (root@smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e33Ml9I15642 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1040.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.16]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA23284 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:47:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000403234705.006869bc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <7a.37244a7.26194d6b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:47:05 +0100 Hi Tom, >> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] > >I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the >equation fields The one on your page does contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) Timothy From VM Mon Apr 3 18:52:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["650" "Monday" "3" "April" "2000" "18:06:31" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 650 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3411nK20197 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3411lI20189 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.166]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000403220822.HMHO26411.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:08:22 +0000 Message-ID: <38E915E7.98E8016D@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <008b01bf9730$a9f2cfb0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:06:31 -0400 "L. Parker" wrote: > This is from CNN: > > http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/03/23/gamma.ray/index.html > > If you want to find ET then perhaps you should try looking for the trail > that an antimatter engine might leave... . . . just make sure you're not stepping on the tail of a superluminal star . . . www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents . . . about two thirds down in "Frames of Reference: Part Two". I used to like Autodynamics, until I found this. > > > Lee Parker > > "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly > because they have too much money." > - Freeman Dyson From VM Wed Apr 5 12:25:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["154" "Wednesday" "5" "April" "2000" "12:06:09" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "4" "starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 154 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e35J6C013934 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e35J6Bn13928 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante35.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante35.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.195]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id MAA25306 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante35.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA75630 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:10 -0700 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: query. Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? Thanks, Nels From VM Thu Apr 6 10:02:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2745" "Wednesday" "5" "April" "2000" "22:53:41" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "81" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2745 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e362sgd11702 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e362sfn11695 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.c8.34285cb (3965); Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:53:41 EDT In a message dated 4/3/00 4:00:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl writes: > Hi Tom, > > >> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] > > > >I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the > >equation fields > > The one on your page does > contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) > > Timothy Hey Timothy, I do not use the square root one as Einstein instructed it had problems of returning imaginary solutions of real numbers and not just imaginary numbers. He fixed the problem with a different derivative I was taught in 1968 at the FAA Academy. The field of equations at indexC.htm is a unified field where all equations are in the same system of measurements and more important where variables like v in different formulas that are not the same are defined and subscripted properly. In this manner standardized definitions are made and discussions do no start out with "no this means that and not this" As It was Einstein's Unified Field Theory that more real work could be accomplished If all spoke the same language-in such a manner different scientific disciplines like electronics, chemistry, physics, math...etc could have a single source field of equations to work from to derive equations to solve unknowns. If you think indexC is confusing you should see my electronics field of equations I will scan in when I find it. I use the American system of measurements my self so click on Mathcad's units of measurement and select those I am most conformable with as I make enough errors without adding conversion errors. I could not land on Mars if I mixed units of measurements ;) Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Thu Apr 6 15:47:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["718" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "18:42:35" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 718 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e36Mh2S15771 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e36Mh1n15753 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.dd.2d5639b (3314); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: starship-design: query. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:42:35 EDT In a message dated 4/5/00 2:13:27 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: >Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic >Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? >Thanks, >Nels http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~kronjaeg/hv/fusor/index.html http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/fsl/welcome.html http://www.glubco.com/weaponry/fusor/fusor.htm http://www.glubco.com/weaponry/fusor/fusor2.htm http://www.ticnet.com/bertpool/philo/philo.htm http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/ http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/miley-2.960603.html http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/miley.960325.html Hope this helps. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 6 19:39:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2023" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "20:53:18" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2023 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e370rZG02254 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e370rXn02249 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.75.2d9a113 (3976); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <75.2d9a113.261e8b7e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: query. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:53:18 EDT n a message dated 4/5/00 12:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: > Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic > Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? > Thanks, > Nels On applied physics. A world wide patent search(1990) in applied physics for plasma rocket engines(two dimensional containers) revealed: Nuclear Powered Propulsive Device- Arthur W. Blackman Jr.- Pat 3,108,054 Gaseous Vortex Reactor For A Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom- Pat 3,270,496 Nuclear Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom et al (Lat."and other(s)") -Pat 3,336,749 Gas Core Reactor Propulsion System- Henry M. Hunter et al- Pat 3,399,534 Gaseous Nuclear Rocket Engine- Sheldon Weinbaum et all- Pat 3,714,782 Type in the above patent number at the U.S. patent office website and you will get the complete plans and description for two dimensional plasma containment devices. My container is Plasma Rocket Engine A magnetoplasmatic rocket engine VASIMIR is a proposal to construct a proof of principle test under NASA supervision. Link http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ For theoretical physics: and three dimensional containers you are on your own as presently scientists do not know how to contain a plasma in three dimensions for any significant length of time or even having significant power levels that do not burst or leak from the container. I do not know why they want one. I am not sure what you want the info for but I hope the links help. If you have want to know anything more specific jusk ask. Who is Bussard and what did he contain? Bussard's inventions are listed as references by patent number in many of the above patents(not mine) and use the given patent numbers to see his machines. Find his Patent proper name used and you can search for his unlisted patents. "Polywell" will not return search results unless that is the proper name of his patented invention. Tom From VM Thu Apr 6 19:39:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2795" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "22:08:00" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: query.Opps" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2795 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3728SS19191 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3728Qn19186 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.46.3ad31cd (3976) for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46.3ad31cd.261e9d00@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: query.Opps Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:08:00 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 5:53:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP writes: > n a message dated 4/5/00 12:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nlindber@u. > washington.edu writes: > > > Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic > > Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? > > Thanks, > > Nels > > On applied physics. > A world wide patent search(1990) in applied physics for plasma rocket > engines(two dimensional containers) revealed: > > Nuclear Powered Propulsive Device- Arthur W. Blackman Jr.- Pat 3,108,054 > Gaseous Vortex Reactor For A Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom- Pat 3,270,496 > Nuclear Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom et al (Lat."and other(s)") -Pat 3,336,749 > > Gas Core Reactor Propulsion System- Henry M. Hunter et al- Pat 3,399,534 > Gaseous Nuclear Rocket Engine- Sheldon Weinbaum et all- Pat 3,714,782 > > Type in the above patent number at the U.S. patent office website and you > will get the complete plans and description for two dimensional plasma > containment devices. > > My two dimensional container is A Plasma Rocket Engine http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > A magnetoplasmatic rocket engine VASIMIR > is a proposal to construct a proof of principle test under NASA supervision. > Link > http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ > > For theoretical physics: > and three dimensional containers you are on your own as presently scientists > do not know how to contain a plasma in three dimensions for any significant > length of time or even having significant power levels that do not burst or > leak from the container. I do not know why they want one. > > I am not sure what you want the info for but I hope the links help. If you > have want to know anything more specific jusk ask. > > Who is Bussard and what did he contain? > > Bussard's inventions are listed as references by patent number in many of > the above patents(not mine) and use the given patent numbers to see his > machines. Find his Patent proper name used and you can search for his > unlisted patents. "Polywell" will not return search results unless that is > the proper name of his patented invention. > > Tom Pardon the previous garbeled post. I had e-mailed it to nlindber@u. washington.edu and negleted to forward to this list and the first attempt to correct failed- So with rewrite Kelly your good links were on target for theoretical physics. My animated FTL engine for your enjoyment (and amusement) ;=) Click on the blue transporter bar at top of animation to transport to cyberspace starship's transporter room. http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page1.html Click here: Engine Animation From VM Thu Apr 6 19:54:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["8422" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "22:53:17" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "<5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com>" "203" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8422 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372rTS28089 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e372rSn28077 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.5a.38098c7 (3976); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jeff@meridian-ds.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:53:17 EDT In a message dated 3/28/00 10:13:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff@meridian-ds.com writes: > Tom I have not written before as I haven't had a lot to say, What I have to > say is simple and to the point put up or shut up. You quote these credible > sources over and over again if they are so credible then tell me where I > can find them, Hi, Jeff , You must of missed the previous post listing the source quotes. The below quote (click on blue Einstein link) was provided. It matched the near death bed confession of Albert Einstein I read in 1963. quoting (I bolded the original text for emphasis) Albert Einstein from the link Ein stein quote---- Some people called me amazing. I was born in Germany in the year 1879. I went to the United States in the 1930s. I developed the important theories of relativity. The famous equation E=MC^2 led to the development of nuclear fission and eventually the atomic bomb. My reason for inventing the atomic bomb, was because the received evidence that Germany (my native country) was planning to build an atomic bomb. They were going to use it against the United States. The atomic bomb was made in the U.S. and in 1945 the United States used the atomic bomb. They used it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I was attending college Marcel Grossman, a classmate, said, "This Einstein will one day be a very great man." Marcel Grossman was right. End partial quote ------ >You may be right but until I can read these sources and > determine their credibility they are meaningless to me. I believe that most > intelligent people think this way. I know I do. The only reason I took Einstein serious then is that what he said about how the atomic bomb worked matched what my uncle ( who put parts in the atomic bomb casings at Pantex) said to a coworker. I overheard from back seat of car at age six and thought it would be a handy thing to remember so I did. here is the next source quotes. "Einstein, Albert." Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (1994 ed.) Kett, Joseph. The Dictionry of Cultural Literacy, Second edition, Revised and updated. 1993. The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, Third Edition. 1992 The next link I am providing you is quoting a women with a top secret clearance from the middle 1940's whose job was to compile for publication Einstein's information on how to build an atomic bomb. She states they failed to do so. He succeeded in early 1955, by finding a female author who took his dictated work, and waited (from fear) before publishing his work in 61 or 62 as he had instructed to publish in juvenile book form to avoid the censors. That is book I read, and these are the links verifying. Note! Einstein wrote very little he dictated most of work. The link; Einstein fondly recalled by area woman Partial quote---- Tuesday, December 28, 1999 Einstein fondly recalled by area woman By KAREN VOYLES Sun staff writer A former military enlistee who once did some typing for Albert Einstein was thrilled to hear that he had been named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine. She would like to read the article but the magazine is not sold in her home county in rural Florida except by subscription. "I already had him pegged -- to me he was the greatest person on this earth," said Jo Garland of rural Gilchrist County. Now 78 and a widow, Garland said her impression of Einstein when she was a young woman was that, "He was a sweet man." This week's Time magazine cover story is about the late scientific genius who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, developed the theory of relativity and helped convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the atom bomb. Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor asked for volunteers. Albert Einstein was named Person of the Century this week by Time magazine. Special to the Sun "They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together after that." Garland said she and the other volunteer typists did their work for Einstein in another building a short walk from the Empire State. Security in the mid-1940s was much more lax than today's world of walk-through metal detectors and fingerprint recognition programs. "The security people would be standing outside the door, but they recognized all of us from the other (Empire State) office and so they would let us in," Garland said. Once at their typewriters, Garland remembered that the WACs got their instructions from a man in baggy clothing with unruly hair -- Einstein. "He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything right then," Garland said. "He wanted universities to be able to study how they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation." Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks end partial quote---- > Also if you already have the patents as > you say you do then no one here can use them in any way, shape or form so > it won't (shouldn't) bother you to post your patented plans or some portion > of said patent. Not so. You can ask for license with reason, and depending on the rights you seek the liscense fee can be as little as one dollar. > Sorry Tom but there is no way you can wire CPU's to a > network board and magically have parallel processing with bat files, at > BEST what you made was a bastardized network not a super computer. Me thinks and uses CPU as it stands for the Central Processing Unit of a computer system. (the box the monitor keyboard, mouse etc are attached to. Not the CPU chip (like pentium 2) inside the box. Again stated the first PC's were made from a parrelel processesing chip from a supercomputer that was attached by mother board to monitor, keyboard, trape drive and the operating system was reduced with many commands not used. I knew this when I began construction of my super computer by wiring the CPU(towers cases and desktops) in parralel and expanding the operating system by adding more commands with bat and macro scripts (time delays for keystrokes establihing the timing and control programs) contained on the series CPU which became the system new true CPU. The super computer is as I described and performed as I stated and documented on my resume (unembelished) at my website. see bio.htm(l). Instead of making unsubstantiated claims of "no way" would it not be better to ask "how" I did something. >Until > you can point me to these credible sources or for that matter anyone I sure > wish you would drop it. I did point but "You can lead a horse to w..." Tom also Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2279" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "19:57:56" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2279 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372vvm28937 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372vuG28930; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.20148.561758.565552@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com> References: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > quoting (I bolded the original text for emphasis) > Albert Einstein from the > link HREF="http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html">Ein > stein > > quote---- > Some people called me amazing. I was born in Germany in the year 1879. I went > to the United States in the 1930s. I developed the important theories of > relativity. The famous equation E=MC^2 led to the development of nuclear > fission and eventually the atomic bomb. My reason for inventing the atomic > bomb, was because the received evidence that Germany (my native country) was > planning to build an atomic bomb. They were going to use it against the > United States. The atomic bomb was made in the U.S. and in 1945 the United > States used the atomic bomb. They used it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I > was attending college Marcel Grossman, a classmate, said, "This Einstein will > one day be a very great man." Marcel Grossman was right. > > End partial quote ------ Let's look at the page at: http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/ ---begin quote--- This web site was created by Dan and Bobby. The Scientific Revolution is an exciting time in the history of mankind. It is a time in which many people looked away from the church and towards logic and objectivity for the answers to their most fundamental questions about life, death, and the universe. It was, and still is, a time of great upheavals in the way men and women live their lives. The Scientific Age is an interesting time to be alive, because of great strides that are made in technology and knowledge at a rapid pace. It can be expected that the Scientific Revolution will face many of the same problems in the future as it has in the past, such as resistance to change, outdated modes of thought, and personal blind spots. We hope that this web page will enlighten you to the mystery and excitement of The Scientific Revolution. We have compiled reports on several scientists. Click the names to view them. Isaac Newton Galileo Galilei Rene Descartes Francis Bacon Albert Einstein Grace Hopper ---end quote-- Your quote is what a couple of students wrote in their report about Einstein, not Einstein's own words. From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2370" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "01:44:50" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2370 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e375j9f24415 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e375j8n24409 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.36.4407306 (3976); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:44:50 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 8:02:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu writes: > > Your quote is what a couple of students wrote in their report about > Einstein, not Einstein's own words. > > Steve, Nonsense. Those students were probably not born when I read in 1963 Einsteins own words in his signed near deathbed confession of 1955. Proven by the copyright date on my report of 1988 stating Einstein invented the bomb as the quote says. Another of your unsubstantiated claims falls with elementary examination. My report was filed with the government disclosure document program in 1989. They (patent office)will send you a copy of the original filing for 25 cents per page (18 total) if you give them the diclosure document number from: http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm Indexda.htm(l) to read it free as it was later revised from text to web page form. I suspect, you will not read it as I said before you have no interest in verifying any thing that might contradict the nonsense you teach. The game you play is simple. You state as fact your theory (unsubstantiated claim), and let any one stating facts proving otherwise do all the proof work of documentation. I do not play your game. Get off your pedastal lazy and do some real working research :=). Begin here: Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["595" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "23:18:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 595 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376IJ328830 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e376IIn28824 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e376IHs26662 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376I6b29708; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:05 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Checking my math. > if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 > and E=MC^2 The formula for relativistic kinetic energy with respect to velocity is: K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) K = kinetic energy m = object mass v = object velocity c = speed of light K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. Relativistic kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of light. You definitely can't exceed the speed of light by approaching it from below. See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["254" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "23:59:18" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 254 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376xbJ03993 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e376xan03987 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e376xZs04408 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376xOF29982; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.34630.591298.540855@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Steve VanDevender writes: > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) Actually, for the units on that to work out right, it should be either: K = m * c^2 * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) or K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2)) - 1) (where v is a fraction of c). From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2035" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "03:24:30" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2035 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377Swi07004 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e377Svn06993 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.29.3710b1d (3976); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:24:30 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > K = kinetic energy > m = object mass > v = object velocity > c = speed of light > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic effects are insignificant though not zero. > Relativistic > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of > light. I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. You definitely can't exceed the speed of light by approaching it > from below. To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light speed from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are limited by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was velocity real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I did not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. This is proven in the following manner. At twice light speed the rocket coasts and travels a distance of 4 light years in two years ship time. Use Einstein's time dilation formula to determine the earth time and divide 4 light years distance/earth time to determine velocity relativistic. About .89C if I recall your solution with the above formula correctly. When both methods (Einstein's time dilation formula and K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1)agree by returning the same results then the formula is proven valid as time dilation has been verified by orbiting clock experiment and your K formula has not. Prove the K formula returns valid results by agreeing with verified experiment. Show work. The v in your formula above should be subscripted relativistic to avoid being confused with velocity susbscripted real. Dropping the subscript Einstein used led to imagining velocities relativistic to be real. Imaginary real numbers and imaginary numbers are common root solution errors of relativistic formulas. Tom From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1677" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "00:43:57" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1677 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377iCT14438 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e377iBn14345 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e377i9s11056 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377hwR30172; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:43:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.37309.617339.594617@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@aol.com> References: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:43:57 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > K = kinetic energy > > m = object mass > > v = object velocity > > c = speed of light > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > effects are insignificant though not zero. You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, but not faster than, c. > > Relativistic > > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of > > light. > > I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. Relativistic kinetic energy _is_ real. Newtonian physics is merely a low-speed approximation to relativistic physics; the approximation breaks down when you start dealing with velocities that are significant fractions of c. If you want calculations that are accurate at any velocity and not just small ones, you need to use the relativistic formula. > To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light speed > from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are limited > by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was velocity > real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I did > not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c, not even one on the rocket. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6036" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "23:10:04" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "145" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6036 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e383ARH26438 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e383AQn26433 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.22.42d1fb8 (7042); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:10:04 EDT In a message dated 4/7/00 12:48:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn. > org > > writes: > > > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > > > K = kinetic energy > > > m = object mass > > > v = object velocity > > > c = speed of light > > > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > > effects are insignificant though not zero. > > You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic > energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that > amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, > but not faster than, c. Steve, You are so close but still you get no cigar. I claim there are two different velocities (Vreal and Vrel. to be calculated for the payload with one velocity (Vrel.) no faster than C as you claim. Focus and concentrate only on the problem I gave. Chose say payload mass of 2 tons and the Vp calculates to 1/2 light speed. We know that this is so because momentum is conserved as MpVp=Pp and Pe=MeVe and since Pp=Pe then the calculation is considered consistent with universal law as momentum is conserved. This conservation occurs with any chosen mass only with the Vreal and not the relativistic velocity(Vrel.); the only one you considered and calculated to be .89C unless you also transform the values Ve,Me and Mp. If your complete transforms are correct then momentum is conserved as Perel.=Pprel. Or Pe'=Pp' with prime understood to be relativistic or rel.. Note! subscript consistency truly is difficult with a typewriter or keyboard without 1/2 space carriage returns. Boolean algebra even is prone to type errors even by me. Focus and concentrate please only on the problem given and make no conclusions like this proves such and such until all calculations are made and any errors (yours and mine a given) are corrected. > > > Relativistic > > > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed > of > > > light. > > > > I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. > > Relativistic kinetic energy _is_ real. You misunderstand the subscript real. Both velocities real and rel. are valid calculations and measurable depending on the frame of reference. Think of it like velocity of propellant given as 1/10 C. Of course this is understood to be an average velocity as some mass parts are slow and some are fast and so can be designated Vavg to calculate. Vreal=distance rocket traveled/ship time Vrel=distance rocket traveled/earth time > Newtonian physics is merely a > low-speed approximation to relativistic physics; the approximation > breaks down when you start dealing with velocities that are significant > fractions of c. Einsteinian physics does not throw out Newtonian physics but relies on them to transform measurements to Einsteinian values and so they can be transformed back to Newtonian physics. Transforms are called that because they go both ways and both ways are valid depending on the frame of reference being observer or observed. > If you want calculations that are accurate at any > velocity and not just small ones, you need to use the relativistic > formula. A point you need to consider is relativistic formula are correct not because of any accuracy. They near Newtonian physics when the part of the gamma graphed curve E Vs V can be considered and treated as linear and close to the x axis. When the curve becomes close to the c asymptote rapidly rising toward infinity (no boundry). There the effects are more pronounced and the narrow range of velocities are commonly called relativistic velocities. Focus and concentrate as this is not to be confused with velocities relativistic. > > To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light > speed > > from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are > limited > > by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was > velocity > > real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I > did > > not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. > > No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c, not even one on the > rocket. The first part of your statement is true. The second is theory (unsubstantiated claim) stated as fact. Now I will focus and concentrate on the problem given and the proof you failed to do even when I told you how to do it. Conserving e-mail paper as you keep erasing the stated problem is not a valid excuse for you not solving it. Focus as I prove it. The rocket at twice light speed travels between two stars a distance of 4 light years. The time onboard the ship measures two years. Using Einstein's time dilation formula for the given masses, two years ship time calculates to be 4.44.. years earth time (recalled from memory). Dividing 4 light years by 4.44.... years and the velocity with respect to earth is observed on earth to be as you calculated as .89c (or .9c as I recall calculating). Label .89C as Velocity rel. Label 2C as Velocity real. Therefore an observer on the ship looks at the 4 light years distance between the stars he traveled and then looks at his calendar watch and knowing time he took to travel the distance (two years) calculates his velocity to be two C. Therefore: Proving; Vrel is valid, Vreal is valid, Both are valid, Your unsubstantiated claim "No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c (true), not even one on the rocket (theory)" is proven invalid. and (at last) Your unsubstantiated claim (jumping to conclusions)"Energy relativistic approaches infinity(unbound) as Vrel approaches C (a true statement) then nothing can exceed light speed (theory)" is proven invalid. Lighting my cigar ;=)' Tom From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3838" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "00:08:34" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3838 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3878ok22293 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3878nn22287 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3878ls04783 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3878ZQ04594; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14574.56050.111458.67881@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@aol.com> References: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:34 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 4/7/00 12:48:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn. > > org > > > writes: > > > > > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > > > > > K = kinetic energy > > > > m = object mass > > > > v = object velocity > > > > c = speed of light > > > > > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > > > > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > > > effects are insignificant though not zero. > > > > You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic > > energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that > > amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, > > but not faster than, c. > > Steve, > You are so close but still you get no cigar. I claim there are two different > velocities (Vreal and Vrel. to be calculated for the payload with one > velocity (Vrel.) no faster than C as you claim. Focus and concentrate only on > the problem I gave. One thing that should be obvious from any study of relativistic physics is that there is no velocity any more real than any other. Conservation of momentum and energy apply in all reference frames, not just the one in which things move at some particular "Vreal". > Einsteinian physics does not throw out Newtonian physics but relies on them > to transform measurements to Einsteinian values and so they can be > transformed back to Newtonian physics. Transforms are called that because > they go both ways and both ways are valid depending on the frame of reference > being observer or observed. Relativistic physics is not a system for converting between Newtonian and relativistic formulae. Relativistic physics is its own statement of the laws of physics that predicts very different behavior than Newtonian physics for high relative velocities. For low relative velocities it turns out that Newtonian physics is a close approximation to relativistic physics. That doesn't mean you can transform any relativistic physics problem into a Newtonian one. > The rocket at twice light speed travels between two stars a distance of 4 > light years. > The time onboard the ship measures two years. Using Einstein's time dilation > formula for the given masses, two years ship time calculates to be 4.44.. > years earth time (recalled from memory). > > Dividing 4 light years by 4.44.... years and the velocity with respect to > earth is observed on earth to be as you calculated as .89c (or .9c as I > recall calculating). You continue to operate under a mistaken assumption that you can meaningfully combine measurements made in different frames. If we're in a frame in which the stars are four light-years apart, and we watch a ship travel between them while two years elapses on the shipboard clock, then we can fairly easily calculate the velocity of the ship in that frame. t'^2 = t^2 - x^2 where t' is shipboard time, t is frame time, and x is the frame distance, so if t' = 2 years and x = 4 light-years, then t is sqrt(20) or about 4.472, and the ship's velocity in that frame is (x / t) = about 0.894 c. In the rocket's frame, however, the stars aren't four light-years apart. An observer on the rocket considers the destination star to be traveling towards him at 0.894 c, and he measures the star to be 1.789 light-years away at the start of his trip. You really need to study a consistent presentation of relativistic physics like Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_; you're basically making several of the mistakes that beginning students of relativity theory make. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["22068" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "08:08:08" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "419" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 92" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 22068 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38DBD908373 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38DBBn08363 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA18257 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:11:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01bfa15b$cf3a3ee0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 92 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:08:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:46:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald L Doughty To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #92 4/5/00 (fwd) Sender: delta-clipper-approval@world.std.com Reply-To: delta-clipper@europe.std.com Space Access Update #92 4/5/00 Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ (SAS's eighth annual conference, "Space Access 2000", will be at the Holiday Inn Old Town in Scottsdale Arizona April 27-29 - see the upcoming SAU #93 or http://www.space-access.org for details. Our hotel room block guarantee ends Friday 4/7/00 - reserve now!) ________________________________________________________________________ Contents: - NASA's Proposed 2001-2005 Space Launch Initiative - Our Recommended Changes Attachment: - SAS FY 2001 Policy Recommendations (reprinted from SAU #91, 2/7/00) ________________________________________________________________________ NASA's Proposed 2001-2005 Space Launch Initiative Background NASA spent the last five years engaged in a process that was supposed to provide the data for a decision at the start of the year 2000 on the future of NASA and US commercial space transportation. The centerpiece of this process was the $1.3 billion X-33/Venturestar project. X-33's main goal was to fly a half-scale feasibility proof for the proposed "Venturestar" reusable space transport; Venturestar was aimed at meeting NASA launch requirements while also capturing enough of the US commercial (and military) launch market to get commercial investors to pay for development. The X-33/Venturestar project has failed, as discussed in detail in our last issue ( http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau91.html). The available evidence is that that Lockheed-Martin cannot build the (multilobe conformal-tanks, lifting-body) design they sold to NASA at anything near light enough weight for a practical reusable rocket space transport, even if they are allowed considerable extra time and money. Meanwhile, investor confidence in the project is conspicuously lacking; the only hope it has for "commercial" finance is an effective federal subsidy in the form of (unlikely) government loan guarantees. By last fall, NASA had come up with a plan, the ASTP (Advanced Space Transportation Plan), after collecting US industry's input via the Space Transportation Architecture Studies (STAS) then apparently ignoring this input wherever it conflicted with the agendas of the major NASA space-launch centers: the JSC/KSC Shuttle/Station establishment, and the MSFC launch technology development center. ASTP would have given JSC major Shuttle upgrades after a nominal competition with new paper "Second Generation" (IE near-term rocket- powered) reusable launcher designs, while MSFC would have gotten significant ongoing funding to develop all the new launch technologies they wanted, just as long as these technologies were so ultra-advanced "Third Generation" that they couldn't possibly provide competition for Shuttle in less than a generation. We didn't like this plan (see SAU #91, "NASA's New Plan") and neither, it seems, did the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB - the people NASA has to justify plans to before they show up in White House budget submissions to Congress. The plan that emerged in the White House FY 2001 NASA budget proposal released in early February differs significantly from last fall's ASTP. The "Space Launch Initiative" NASA's latest five-year plan, the $4.5 billion Space Launch Initiative (see http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/EPS/synopsis.cgi?acqid=25421 for details) superficially addresses some of the problems with previous efforts: It calls for a goal of at least two competing commercial launch systems serving NASA needs, it partially breaks out NASA requirements into a semi-separate "NASA-Unique Systems" project, and it pays lip-service to expanding the contractor base beyond the current limited (both in numbers and in recent results - the *better* of the two remaining majors can't keep track of Station costs or Station hardware) post-consolidation field. We do not question the good intentions of the people who've come up with this plan. But recent history has made plain that NASA is at heart, like it or not, a massive government bureaucracy, and good intentions seldom beat bureaucratic mass. Intentions entirely aside, NASA's new plan is still fatally flawed, in that it's based on two fundamentally wrong assumptions: - One, that yet another Government-sponsored attempt to force convergence between NASA space transportation needs and US commercial launch needs (in the hope that NASA requirements might be met with commercial development funding) is either practical or desirable. It is neither. Both previous such efforts (the pre-Challenger shutdown of the US ELV (Expendable Launch Vehicle) industry in favor of Shuttle, and the X- 33/Venturestar project) have been practical disasters, in significant part because NASA and commercial requirements in terms of system performance, political control, staffing, and costs are fundamentally incompatible. Commercial launch customers were switching to Ariane even before loss of Challenger shut down NASA Shuttle for two years, and there was no real prospect of unsubsidized commercial investment in "Venturestar" even before the current technical/management problems surfaced. Both previous such efforts have also been disasters in that, despite the improbability of success for the government's repeated attempts at NASA-commercial convergence, the mere fact of a government-sponsored effort to seize a majority of the commercial launch market deterred commercial investment in competing systems. What sane commercial investor wants to compete against the government? This has been a significant factor in the radical decline in US share of the international commercial launch market. There have been (with considerable encouragement from DOD) some cautious investments in improved commercial ELV's, enough to at least stop the bleeding and stabilize US launch market share somewhat below fifty percent, but investments in the sort of radically cheaper launch systems that might allow the US to start regaining lost market share have been few and far between, with no projects financed through to completion yet. Odds are, if NASA is allowed to proceed with yet another five-year plan to shotgun-wed NASA and commercial launch requirements, the results will be both another expensive failure, and also another five years wasted for the US companies that want to leapfrog current ELV technology and bring the US a much larger share of the growing international launch market. - The second wrong assumption underlying this latest five-year plan is that meeting NASA's internal space launch needs should be the central goal of NASA space launch development efforts. This is not just inference on our part; NASA comes right out and say that the primary customer for this effort is NASA, in the "Launch Initiative Program Description" at http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/progdesc.pdf, and in a quote attributed to the NASA Administrator at the Advanced Space Transportation Plan rollout in Huntsville last October: "The customer is NASA" - IE, the NASA Shuttle/Station establishment, representing as it does half of NASA's overall budget, by far the largest NASA consumer of space launch and by far the largest bureaucratic political power center within the agency. The fact is, though, that the commercial space market surpassed the total of government space business back in the mid-nineties, and world commercial space continues to grow fast while government space is essentially flat. Aerospace exports are the largest single area of US trade surplus - but this surplus is shrinking. NASA is supposed to be supporting US commercial (and defense) advanced aerospace vehicle needs, not just internal NASA agendas. To date, and in this new five-year plan too, NASA is failing this task miserably - apparently doing their damndest to ignore it entirely, where they can't subsume it to their own internal needs. A US share of a fast growing world market that's barely holding on in the forties is too important to subordinate to NASA bureaucratic turf defense. We don't argue that NASA's internal space launch needs should be ignored, mind. All arguments about high cost versus limited returns for the current Shuttle/Station program aside, we can't stop flying astronauts into space without significant negative effect on national morale - the Challenger standdown was a national trauma; the ongoing manned space program remains a major national status symbol. This country is, however, under no obligation to always conduct this program as expensively as we do now. The fiction that NASA space launch needs can be shotgun-wedded to commercial requirements has allowed repeated attempts by the Shuttle/Station establishment to ignore realistic examination of cost versus capabilities in pursuing function-for-function replacements for Shuttle. (Shuttle's large "downmass" capability in particular needs scrutiny - it's the main thing a (considerably cheaper) combination of a smaller "space taxi" plus heavy-lift expendables can't provide, and it is used so seldom that rational analysis will likely show that it'd be far cheaper to either build new copies of the occasional large "downmass" payloads, or leave them in orbit between uses, rather than pay to continue this rarely used capability.) Policy Change Recommendations NASA must be instructed to cease efforts to square the circle; this latest shotgun wedding between NASA and commercial advanced space launch development must be called off. Yes, NASA needs to devote a significant level of effort to supporting their own Shuttle/Station establishment's launch needs - but they also need to support US industry's need for technological advances that will allow significant market share (and national security) gains. Most important of all, given the NASA Shuttle/Station establishment's demonstrated ability to bend all available agency resources toward its internal agendas, a firewall is needed between the NASA-specific and the commercial advanced launch support efforts, a very solid firewall. On the assumption that $4.5 billion over five years to meet national space launch needs is actually on the table, we recommend: - $3 billion of this be formally committed to supporting NASA's internal need to back up (and eventually to replace) Shuttle. Half this amount should continue to go to the "NASA-Unique Systems" project, in essence an effort to combine various Crew Return Vehicle and Crew Transfer Vehicle efforts into an overall "Space Taxi" project aimed at a flexible general-purpose space transport capable of launch via Shuttle, via EELV-Heavy, or via future as-yet undefined commercial reusable systems. NASA should build the F-250 crew-cab pickup of space, rather than another eighteen-wheeler Winnebago. The other half should be divided between "Space Taxi" integration with EELV (with emphasis on subscale demonstration of reliable emergency vehicle separation and recovery, rather than on extensive "man-rating" changes to EELV to marginally increase booster reliability) and such other NASA-unique systems as NASA deems appropriate - Station small package delivery, subscale reusable flyback booster demos, et cetera. - $1.5 billion, or $300 million a year, should be committed to support the US commercial space launch sector, via NASA "Future-X" and/or via similar organizations under DOD - DARPA, AFRL Phillips, and ONR all come to mind. NASA's current budget submission calls for shutting down "Future-X" after current projects are complete; if NASA genuinely doesn't want the job of supporting US commercial and defense advanced space launch needs, other agencies are available. Splitting available funds among more than one sponsoring agency makes sense anyway, in that competition concentrates the bureaucratic mind wonderfully. The general approach should be to support construction and intensive testing of actual hardware at the edge of the current practical state- of-the-art, in ground tests and flight demonstrations of individual subsystems and integrated vehicles. In order to spread the eggs among many baskets and to encourage diverse competing approaches,the maximum size for any individual project should be what NASA currently calls "Pathfinder" class, one to two hundred million dollars total, with many smaller projects also included in the mix. In order to expand the potential reusable aerospace-frame vendor base beyond the current post-consolidation pair, the risk of awarding significant hardware contracts to unproven or startup companies should be accepted. (We note in passing that NASA has effectively done exactly this in awarding the "Pathfinder" class X-34 project to Orbital Sciences - when OSC finishes X-34, they'll be in good position to credibly pursue a commercial RLV venture. We approve, and we'd like to see this precedent expanded to other companies.) (We also note that given the recent track record of the established majors, going with startups won't likely increase risk very much.) Finally, and very important, projects should be selected on the basis of providing practical advances in reusable space launch systems of near-term use to US commercial and defense interests. "NASA requirements" should be kept on the far side of an inviolable firewall. NASA manned space will eventually end up using systems developed under this program, but given their record of protecting bureaucratic turf at expense of the national interest, NASA launch customers *must* not be allowed to interfere with this program. *end* ________________________________________________________________________ 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 A. Heinlein ________________________________________________________________________ ----------Text Attachment---------- (We originally published the following NASA advanced launch development policy analysis and recommendations on February seventh, 2000, the same day NASA unveiled its FY 2001 budget request, which includes initiation of a $4.5 billion, five-year "Space Launch Initiative". We've seen nothing in that plan to radically alter our conclusions and recommendations, and much to confirm them.) Eleven Months Till 2001, And We're Still Stuck On This Rock - Now What? SAS FY 2001 Policy Recommendations - On NASA X-33: If Lockheed-Martin truly believes X-33 is still relevant to anything other than saving corporate face, let them prove it by paying for all additional costs from this point forward. NASA should support them in this if Lockheed-Martin chooses to continue, but without spending any further taxpayer dollars on the project. If indeed Lockheed-Martin is serious about Venturestar as a genuine commercial project, and if indeed they believe X-33 still has any relevance to the much-changed Venturestar design, let them put their own money where their mouth is. Otherwise, it's time to shut X-33 down as being an expensive lesson in what not to do in pursuing cheaper space launch. - On Federal loan guarantees for space launch projects: We oppose any measure that would have the effect of picking and subsidizing a "winner" or winners from among the variety of companies planning low-cost launch projects. All such measures we have seen to date have, for all practical purposes, been aimed at some specific company. We do not oppose Federal support for commercial low-cost launch ventures in general, but we have yet to see legislation introduced that would provide such support on a level playing field. - On Federal support for development of low-cost reusable launch technology: Available funds should be increased modestly, should be focussed on a variety of relatively small projects aimed at flight- demonstrating a variety of different near-term payoff approaches, should not be confined to projects proposed by the existing major firms, should not be allocated by just one government agency, and should be allocated by organizations and to organizations willing to pay attention to past lessons on successfully advancing the aerospace state-of-the-art via X-vehicle projects. Specifically, we would like to see more funding for NASA "Future-X" flight demonstrator projects, and also for similar projects in appropriate (IE not hidebound-bureaucratized) agencies under DOD. Competition is good - the recent policy of one specialty, one center, eliminating intra-government competition, has greatly reduced incentives to succeed, by reducing the danger of losing funding to another agency in the event of failure. Instead, agencies have taken to defending failure by claiming the job was impossible anyway. Absent competition, who can prove otherwise? Ideally, we would like to see, between NASA and DOD over the next decade, one new start per year of a one-to-two hundred million dollar-class reusable launch flight demonstrator project, with the goal of giving all credible players (and not just the existing majors) a chance to show what they can do. There are a wide variety of credible approaches to cheap space transportation. But commercial investors so far will not pay to see which might fly and which won't; the payoff is too uncertain and too long-term. The Federal government can, for no more per-year than NASA spent on X-33, separate the wheat from the chaff, to the point where a few years from now commercial investors (and government procurement officials) will be able to make sensible low-risk decisions on low-cost reusable space vehicles. - Shuttle: The NASA Space Shuttle should be maintained and operated on missions of national importance until its variety of functions can be replaced by various more specialized lower-cost vehicles. Routine NASA space transportation services should end up commercially contracted for, just as NASA currently procures routine air transportation services. NASA isn't allowed to operate its own airline - over the long term, the agency should also be moved away from operating its own spaceline. In the short term, a flexibly-launched (on EELV, Shuttle, or future reusables) Crew/Cargo Transfer Vehicle (CCTV) should be rapidly developed as a supplement to and potential emergency replacement for Shuttle, in order to, at acceptable cost, assure NASA's ability to meet its manned-space commitments. Shuttle upgrades should be limited to addressing immediate safety concerns and to providing operating cost and/or capability improvements that will pay for themselves in the short term. The current prohibition on Shuttle competing with commercial launch providers should be continued indefinitely, to avoid disrupting an emerging industry that is currently fragile and in the long run is vital to the nation's economic security and national defense. - NASA's massive "manned space" Shuttle-Station establishment in general needs to be brought to heel. They currently consume half of NASA's overall budget while providing at-best dubious results. Meanwhile they far too often act as the hypertrophied tail wagging the NASA dog. For one example, the nominally separate branch of NASA that deals with advancing space transportation technology seems totally unable to make plans that don't give priority to the manned space empire's requirements over those of US industry and US defense agencies. X-33 and now ISTP both suffered badly from this. - NASA's space technology centers need to pay far more attention to the practical needs of US industry. On March 3, 1915, the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (later the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics or NACA) was established by a rider to the Naval Appropriations Act, "..to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view of their practical solution." *Practical* solution. Workable solutions *now*, not ultra-advanced whizbangs in twenty years. A working rocket engineer recently told us he has file cabinets full of old NACA reports that he uses every day - they're models of concise, accurate, useful information. He says that reports from the first few years after NACA became NASA are still useful, but after the early sixties things went downhill, badly. NACA was vital to the success of the US aviation industry. To the struggling US low-cost launch industry, today's NASA is no such asset. One example of the sort of work NASA ought to be doing but isn't: Most current rocket engines were intended to be thrown away after one flight, and thus reuse of them has not been explored and documented. Reports on the practical reusability of various engines - relight procedures, throttling potential, number of cycles, minutes of burn-time, wear and recommended maintenance intervals for various parts - would be immensely useful to reusable launch designers, however tedious and unglamorous they'd be to generate. NASA's spaceflight technology centers have lost sight of this "NACA" practical industry support function, and need to be led back toward it. If they prefer sexy ultra-advanced decades-off technology work so much they still refuse to do the NACA job, the task (and the funding) should be given to someone else. *end* From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1358" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "11:37:38" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1358 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38FeFr20467 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38FeEn20460 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.40]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000408154008.CERJ14374.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:37:38 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. Steve, For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a better book to recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it away. A friend of mine agreed with me that this is not a book of science, it is a book of dogma (INVARIANT INTERVAL), chiseled in stone, and supported mostly by comments, the gist of which is, "believe it because we say so" and "everybody knows . . .", and extending to the insidious technique of training the reader to defend its precepts against logical argument. It also wasted very extensive space on pointless discussions of paradoxes. This book taught me almost nothing about physics, but was quite enlightening in brainwashing and propaganda techniques. Even the opening parable of the Daytimers and the Nighttimers concludes wrongly (that they would be in agreement: they won't, because they will still be using different references). Frankly, I've read religious tracts that were more intellectually appealing. I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical thinker, and your continued support of this book is undermining my estimation of your own credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a different one to recommend. Curtis L. Manges From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1732" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "15:46:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1732 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38Kn5302616 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38Kn3n02607 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p466.gnt.com [204.49.91.82]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA07378; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:48:52 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01bfa19b$c11820d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'Steve VanDevender'" , "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:46:45 -0500 Curtis Manges wrote: > > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. > > Steve, > > For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a > better book to > recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it > away. [clip] Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people are who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the preeminent scientists in the field of relativistic physics. Even a simple search turns up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes either, but critical new theories and basic research. If you are going to bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and put your foot in your mouth. > I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical > thinker, and your > continued support of this book is undermining my estimation > of your own > credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a > different one to recommend. Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this subject.... L. Parker _____________________________________________________________ "Who is this that darkens council by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee and answer thou me... Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or has thou walked in the recesses of the depth? Or hast thou seen the doors of deepest darkness? ...Hast thou comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. " The Book of Job From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1957" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "16:17:59" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1957 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38LN0E07426 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38LMwn07421 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-05.splitrock.net [209.252.103.101]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04360 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004082122.RAA04360@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:17:59 -0500 > Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid > one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people are > who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the preeminent > scientists in the field of relativistic physics. What your status is does not justify the use of dogmatism. I am sorry, but I have this book, and have read it quite thoroughly, and I agree with Curtis...it does contain dogma. The basic knowledge the book gives is good, but the way it is presented can leave something to be desired. Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler are great scientists, yes. But they are not gods. For one of them to say "this is possible/not possible because some numbers say so or I say so" is not a professional attitude. What they _should_ have said, was something like this: "we don't think this-that-the other is possible, because of this theory and the evidence which supports said theory." > Even a simple search turns > up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes > either, but critical new theories and basic research. That is all fine and well. But there is more to life that idly theorizing and tabulating. One should strive to conduct new experiments to find out how things _really_ work, not how we like to think they work. I don't know if superluminal travel is possible, but it is certainly more worthy of investigation that a so-called "theory of everything." > If you are going to > bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and put > your foot in your mouth. I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend nonetheless. There is a difference. > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > subject.... I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite enlightening. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3929" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "15:45:02" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "69" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3929 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38MjMU18509 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38MjGn18499 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38MjEs07722 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e38Mj6v07554; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. > > Steve, > > For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a better book to > recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it away. A friend > of mine agreed with me that this is not a book of science, it is a book of > dogma (INVARIANT INTERVAL), chiseled in stone, and supported mostly by > comments, the gist of which is, "believe it because we say so" and > "everybody knows . . .", and extending to the insidious technique of > training the reader to defend its precepts against logical argument. It also > wasted very extensive space on pointless discussions of paradoxes. This book > taught me almost nothing about physics, but was quite enlightening in > brainwashing and propaganda techniques. Even the opening parable of the > Daytimers and the Nighttimers concludes wrongly (that they would be in > agreement: they won't, because they will still be using different > references). Frankly, I've read religious tracts that were more > intellectually appealing. I think I know where you're coming from, to the extent that I've seen you express support for "alternative" physical theories like autodynamics. I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; what you call dogma I see as emphasizing the simple fundamental ideas behind relativity theory. Invariance of spacetime interval in relativity is just as fundamental an idea as the invariance of distance in Euclidean geometry; the parable of the daytimers and nighttimers is meant to emphasize that while you can choose different coordinate systems in which the same location has different coordinates, there are geometrical invariants that apply to any of coordinate systems one might choose. Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in all frames. And since a great source of confusion in students who are learning relativity are things like the seeming twin paradox, spending time on explaining why the seeming paradoxes aren't really paradoxes makes a lot of sense to me. > I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical thinker, and your > continued support of this book is undermining my estimation of your own > credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a > different one to recommend. I think anyone who studies the history of science knows that while many scientists in a particular time think they have the definitive laws of physics, what science does over time is obtain an increasingly precise understanding of the underlying laws of nature. Newtonian physics was successful for so long because every experiment that was possible to do during its reign confirmed its results; the major hurdle relativistic physics had to overcome to be accepted was obtaining the experimental proof that showed it worked better than Newtonian physics in the domains that previous experiments had been unable to test. If something better than relativity is to come along, to be accepted it will need to make predictions measurably different than relativity, and then have those predictions be proven by experiment. I don't promote relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen the better thing yet. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["160" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "13:44:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: query.Opps" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 160 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39Hieg02290 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e39Hidn02285 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.5.) id z.62.24ec0f2 (4262); Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62.24ec0f2.26221b79@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: query.Opps Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:44:25 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 9:10:53 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > >Kelly your good links were on target for theoretical physics. Glad to help. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3827" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "15:48:39" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3827 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39JpMk24836 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e39JpKn24831 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.158]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000409195114.YCUB20062.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:51:14 +0000 Message-ID: <38F0DE97.DC299C91@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004082122.RAA04360@fh105.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 15:48:39 -0400 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid > > one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people > are > > who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the > preeminent > > scientists in the field of relativistic physics. > > What your status is does not justify the use of dogmatism. I am sorry, but > I have this book, and have read it quite thoroughly, and I agree with > Curtis...it does contain dogma. The basic knowledge the book gives is good, > but the way it is presented can leave something to be desired. Edwin Taylor > and John Wheeler are great scientists, yes. But they are not gods. For one > of them to say "this is possible/not possible because some numbers say so > or I say so" is not a professional attitude. What they _should_ have said, > was something like this: "we don't think this-that-the other is possible, > because of this theory and the evidence which supports said theory." > > > Even a simple search turns > > up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes > > either, but critical new theories and basic research. > > That is all fine and well. But there is more to life that idly theorizing > and tabulating. One should strive to conduct new experiments to find out > how things _really_ work, not how we like to think they work. I don't know > if superluminal travel is possible, but it is certainly more worthy of > investigation that a so-called "theory of everything." > > > If you are going to > > bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and > put > > your foot in your mouth. > > I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. > Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend > nonetheless. There is a difference. > > > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > > subject.... > > I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite > enlightening. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister Thank you, Kyle; I'll try it. Thanks also for your more moderate response. To clarify further, what chased me off was primarily the supercilious tone of the book. This is exemplified by a statement very early in it which says, more or less, "you don't need to know how this works, you can start using it now." This is in contrast to the tone of the course materials I used in getting my associate degree in electrical engineering; the tone in those was as one adult to another, and things were explained step by step in such a way that, when you finished the course, if you forgot a formula, you could derive it again for yourself on the spot. Of course, I admit that such treatment may have been outside the scope of Taylor & Wheeler's book. As to these people's preeminence in their field, that is not to be assumed as an automatic qualification for being a teacher, nor is it an excuse for dogmatism. As well, we have to be careful to remember the role of politics and money in science and academia, as Tom (not to mention NASA) has been reminding us lately. A lot of the preeminent scientists have their life's careers invested in supporting their favorite theories, and they (and their supporters) tend to react vehemently to even the slightest criticism of same. This is politics, not science. We obviously have yet to finish what's been started, and our understanding of physics may change radically in the coming years. Work with what you know works, yes, but don't be afraid to honestly evaluate new ideas, even if they threaten your old favorites. This is how we grow, and the term "growing pains" encompasses this. It can hurt very much to have to start over from scratch, if that's what it takes, but the willingness to do so is a mark of maturity. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1728" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "16:10:11" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39KAsQ28426 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e39KArn28421 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 7.2f.3a9ba77 (3964); Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.3a9ba77.26223da3@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:10:11 EDT In a message dated 4/8/00 2:23:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stk@sunherald.infi.net writes: > > I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. > Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend > nonetheless. There is a difference. Hi Kyle, As I recall Relativity was Einstein's theory not Edwin Teller's So the authority (authorship) belongs to Albert E. Many consider Ed Teller to be the father of the atomic bomb. I suspect from eye witness reports that Teller was the cuckolded husband of a bastard child (atomic bomb) fathered by Einstein. Edward Teller only worked on the Manhattan project. No factual evidence beyond hearsay that he ever knew how it worked has been found. Do not know if that is the correct name or the same man Steve trusts but does not verify. In any case who is Wheeler and what new equations did he ever add to or claim to add to Einstein's relativity theory SR or GR? > > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > > subject.... > > I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite > enlightening. For a begginner like Steve I recommend "The Layman's Guide to Relativity" I read in junior high. Steve has much catching up to do. Einstein's published letters to Burtrand Russell (mathmetician) are also recommended. His personal unedited English writing style in other first rough drafts I prefer does take much getting used to but is unmistakable and crystal clear when syntax and other grammatical errors common to a second tongue (language)are accounted for. Pause from discussion... Tax time :=( see you responders after April 15th. Tom > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7547" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "20:09:39" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "140" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7547 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A0Cfw09204 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A0Cen09198 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.36]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000410001233.PFMM12683.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:09:39 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > I think I know where you're coming from, to the extent that I've seen > you express support for "alternative" physical theories like > autodynamics. > > I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that > is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much > clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; that's scary . . . > what you > call dogma I see as emphasizing the simple fundamental ideas behind > relativity theory. Invariance of spacetime interval in relativity is > just as fundamental an idea as the invariance of distance in Euclidean > geometry; the parable of the daytimers and nighttimers is meant to > emphasize that while you can choose different coordinate systems in > which the same location has different coordinates, there are geometrical > invariants that apply to any of coordinate systems one might choose. Sure, polar vs. cartesian, and the day- and nighttimers _will_ agree on the _distance_ to the point in question, but they will _still_ argue about its _location_, because they still have differing compass references, one magnetic and one celestial. Sorry I had to throw that in, but the authors should have caught it. > Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different > coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between > events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in > all frames. I understand this concept as presented, but I have a problem with it -- see below > And since a great source of confusion in students who are > learning relativity are things like the seeming twin paradox, spending > time on explaining why the seeming paradoxes aren't really paradoxes > makes a lot of sense to me. I'll buy that, but I seem to recall them presenting some paradoxes which they admitted to being insolvable. I could be wrong on this, though. > I think anyone who studies the history of science knows that while many > scientists in a particular time think they have the definitive laws of > physics, what science does over time is obtain an increasingly precise > understanding of the underlying laws of nature. Newtonian physics was > successful for so long because every experiment that was possible to do > during its reign confirmed its results; the major hurdle relativistic > physics had to overcome to be accepted was obtaining the experimental > proof that showed it worked better than Newtonian physics in the domains > that previous experiments had been unable to test. of course . . . > If something better than relativity is to come along, to be accepted it > will need to make predictions measurably different than relativity, and > then have those predictions be proven by experiment. harder yet, it'll have to overcome money (private, public, and institutional) and politics (governmental and academic). > I don't promote > relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of > physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly > the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to > change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen > the better thing yet. Could you comment, please, on Gaasenbeek's work? ( www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents ) Like I say, I'm not a scientist, but I like this better than Autodynamics. The reason I liked both of the above has to do with the problem I mentioned earlier, about the invariance of interval. The problem is, that I don't think it's right, and both AD and Gaasenbeek's theories do away with its resulting paradoxes, time dilation, etc. Let me explain as best I can. Time is not a property of matter; if it were, we could answer the question, "How many minutes are in that glass of water?" Time, to me, is strictly history, and cannot be properly related to anything physical, either matter or space; it's merely an intellectual construct used to relate events chronologically. Note that, in a universe with only one event, there is no use for the concept of time. Since matter takes up space, those two are related, but just for fun, consider that in a universe with only one object, there would be no use for the concept of space (and yes, I know that this object would have to be dimensionless and therefor only theoretical). Space, therefor, is our way of relating objects physically, similarly to the way time relates them chronologically. Strictly aside, I'll throw energy in with matter and space, but I will now indicate that time still doesn't belong with them, or else you could answer the question, "How many seconds are there in a watt?" Now, Lorentz (I'm going to blame him here, because _Spacetime Physics_ said it was his idea) took a concept which dates back to prehistory: that distance can be _thought of_ in terms of time ("How far to the next oasis?" "Half a day on foot.") and applied the Pythagorean theorem to the combination, getting his invariant interval as the result. Note the emphasis: _thought of_. Just because time and space can be related to one another (by the necessary inclusion of a velocity term) _does not_, to me, mean that the two can be _substituted_; they are two altogether different things. It's like, say, vitamin C in food; you could make up tables showing that so many tomatoes have the same amount as so many grapefruit, but you wouldn't want to substitute grapefruit for the tomatoes in your marinara sauce. And yes, that's a sloppy analogy, but you are grinning, aren't you? So you can see the problem I have with relativistic physics, and the appeal that AD (or, better) Gaasenbeek's ideas have for me. To me, they explain the universe more logically. Take two examples I recall from Taylor & Wheeler: one states that a ship going in a straight line will take longer, at the same velocity, than one going zig-zag; another states that a ship doing a round trip at constant velocity will take longer going out than it will coming back. I'm sorry, folks, but this just seems schizophrenic to me. A big part of the problem, as I see it, is linguistic. Look at the everyday references to 'time' in our language: we speak of time as a corporeal commodity which we can buy, save, lose, trade, and of course, never have enough of. But since time isn't physical, this all amounts to linguistic garbage; we're speaking of something in terms which cannot apply to it. We allow such garbage into our linguistic concepts because it's convenient, we forget that it's garbage, and then we unthinkingly corrupt other concepts with this convenient garbage. It's like programming a computer with corrupted algorithms. What makes this so dangerous is that it is now known that the _words_ we use actually affect our thought processes, the very way our brains work, meaning that, for us to carry corrupted concepts in our language causes our brains to dysfunction. Now, here's one that'll really ruffle some feathers. This was an idea I had wanted to follow up myself, but I doubt I could handle the math, and the scope of the research is likely beyond me as well, but . . . Limiting the topic to space-time physics, relativistic physics, whatever you want to call it, what would you have if you went through all the pertinent equations and removed all "time" terms from them? Think about that one for a while, while I apply some refractory ceramics to my email in-box. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4640" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "20:52:42" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4640 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A3qpi15452 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A3qpn15442 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A3qns06863 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3A3qhQ16174; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > > I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that > > is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much > > clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > that's scary . . . I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even harder to read. > Sure, polar vs. cartesian, and the day- and nighttimers _will_ agree > on the _distance_ to the point in question, but they will _still_ > argue about its _location_, because they still have differing compass > references, one magnetic and one celestial. Sorry I had to throw that > in, but the authors should have caught it. I don't see anything in Taylor and Wheeler's discussion that says that the point is to find a way to agree about the location of something; the point is to find relationships between the possible locations that different observers measure. Of course the daytimers and nighttimers measure different locations, and they're not trying to convince you they shouldn't; however, there is a simple way to relate the different locations measured by the daytimers and nighttimers. Similarly, one measures different spacetime coordinates for events in different relativistic reference frames, yet there are predictable relationships between the coordinates in different frames based on the relationships between the frames. > > Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different > > coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between > > events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in > > all frames. > > I understand this concept as presented, but I have a problem with it -- see below You know, it doesn't matter whether you have a problem with it or not. Lots of people have problems, conceptual or philosophical, with physical theories; theories aren't out there because a mythical conspiracy of powerful scientists are pushing those over ones that you might feel better about. Theories survive because they appear to model the universe better than the known alternatives. Progress in physics has allowed us to explore phenomena well outside what humans can directly experience, and it turns out that the universe doesn't work the way your "common sense" makes you think it should in a lot of ways. > I'll buy that, but I seem to recall them presenting some paradoxes > which they admitted to being insolvable. I could be wrong on this, > though. Cite one. > > I don't promote > > relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of > > physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly > > the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to > > change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen > > the better thing yet. > > Could you comment, please, on Gaasenbeek's work? ( > www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents ) Like I say, I'm not a scientist, but > I like this better than Autodynamics. Again, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not; what matters is whether Gaasenbeek's theories make measurably different predictions from conventional theories, and whether those predictions can be confirmed by experiment. >From what I can tell Gaasenbeek believes there are some kind of "helical particle wave" phemonena that he thinks explains various physical phenomena better than relativity. However, even he seems to admit that there's no experimental proof for his idea, and from what I can tell he isn't even making substantially different predictions than conventional theories, just trying to explain them in a different way. Two theories that make the same predictions in different ways aren't really different theories. However, scientists have tended to prefer the theory that uses the least extra stuff to explain what's going on. As for your rather lengthy discussion of the nature of time, I can say a few things: You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well enough to properly criticize it. Saying that it doesn't make sense to you (and using a lot of sloppy analogies to show that you don't get the idea) isn't a criticism of the idea. Misstating what Taylor and Wheeler say about spacetime interval isn't a criticism of the idea. Claiming that the relativistic characterization of time is "linguistic garbage" despite it being mathematically simple and consistent isn't a criticism of the idea. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1229" "Monday" "10" "April" "2000" "00:21:34" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "starship-design: Formula page" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1229 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A9Sri18586 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A9Spn18581 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (stol-104-128.uu.studentennet.nl [145.98.104.128]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20891 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000410002134.00690f64@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Formula page Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:21:34 +0100 Hi Tom, >>>> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] >>> >>>I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the >>>equation fields >> >>The one on your page does >>contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) > >I do not use the square root one as Einstein instructed it had problems of >returning imaginary solutions of real numbers and not just imaginary numbers. If you trow away the root, then why not throw away the division as well? That way you can also use v=c without getting a division error. Please quote me a accesible reference where Einstein suggests removing the square root in the way you do. >He fixed the problem with a different derivative I was taught in 1968 at the >FAA Academy. I don't consider imaginary numbers a problem. You can easily avoid getting them by taking the absolute of the term inside the squareroot (thus avoiding negative numbers). (You can also take the absolute afterwards in this case.) And I don't see where your reply has answered my remark about the formula on your page having only the variable c, while you write that "gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial dimensions". Timothy From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2032" "Monday" "10" "April" "2000" "16:08:40" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2032 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3AEA8N11117 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3AE9Gn10945 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16823 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:08:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004101408.QAA16823@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:08:40 +0200 (MET DST) Sorry, but due to a severe lack of time recently, I am unable to take more active part in this discussion - I even have troubles with catching up with it (my "LIT-unread" archive contains still 270 posts...). One smal remark, though: > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 10 02:13:34 2000 > From: Curtis Manges > > So you can see the problem I have with relativistic physics, > and the appeal that AD (or, better) Gaasenbeek's ideas have for me. > To me, they explain the universe more logically. Take two examples > I recall from Taylor & Wheeler: one states that a ship going > in a straight line will take longer, at the same velocity, than one > going zig-zag; another states that a ship doing a round trip at constant > velocity will take longer going out than it will coming back. > I'm sorry, folks, but this just seems schizophrenic to me. > Sorry, but this is no argument - our old & very natural Newtonian mechanics is also full of such "paradoxes", if only we step outside the circle of our familiar experiences - e.g., to space... For example, when you are on a circular orbit around, say, Earth, and want to transfer to a higher circular orbit, then despite the fact that the orbital velocity on that higher orbit is _smaller_ than on that you are using now, to reach the higher orbit you must actually _speed up_ twice (with the impulse propulsion mode). Isn't it shizophrenic? There are plenty of such paradoxes, also concerning rocket flight in the atmosphere (e.g., in some circumstances, with _the same amount of fuel_ you can reach higher altitute if you _increase the total weight_ of the rocket...). Fond of such paradoxes was one of the pioneers of astronautics - Ary Szternfeld (of Polish origin, BTW), what brought him a name of "Lord Paradox" in the astronautics community. He described many of them in his books and papers, starting from his fundamental book "Introduction to Cosmonautics" (first published in Moscow in 1937). -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed Apr 12 10:06:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2754" "Tuesday" "11" "April" "2000" "22:04:52" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2754 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3C27Il00228 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3C27G400223 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.186]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000412020710.VQNH14374.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:07:10 +0000 Message-ID: <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:04:52 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > > > that's scary . . . > > I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical > hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even > harder to read. Pity's sake, Steve, I was trying to have some fun there. Excuse me for failing to append the ;-) to it. And, no, I don't want philosophical hand wringing (whatever that is) any more than I want dogma, I want _information_, I want _instruction_, and I want it clear, concise, and step by step, with each step explained fully, so that when I'm done working through it, I have understanding and confidence. > from what I can tell he [Gaasenbeek] > isn't even making substantially different predictions than conventional > theories, just trying to explain them in a different way. If he refuted time dilation, would that be different enough? Go back and read "Time Dilation: Fact or Fiction?" > You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well > enough to properly criticize it. Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, labeled "a" as space and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied Pythagorean theorem, and got space-time as the hypotenuse, "c". Very elegant, very simple. What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. Here's how I see it: (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the question, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that matter, even "How many seconds are in a meter?") (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an equation therefor, (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant interval, are illegal. I can't get any more concise than this in my presentation of my misunderstanding, and this should now allow you to precisely target my error and correct it. Whoever does so will get a gold star for the day, I will immediately buy the whole ball of wax, and we can all be happy together and go on to other things. Okay? Now, before I close for the day, I want to apologize to all of you, for what I'm sure has been one of the most exasperating series of exchanges in, oh, at least a couple of weeks. I know that you're all well intentioned, conscientious folks, just trying to accomplish some meaningful work in this life, same as me, and you're probably all pretty good at what you do. I have no ill will towards anyone, but sometimes I get a little abrasive, and I apologize. I'm working on that. Steve, I owe you a personal apology for my unjust harshness in my first post about the book. Please forgive me for that. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5890" "Wednesday" "12" "April" "2000" "21:02:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "123" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5890 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3D42SP21011 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3D42Q421002 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3D42LF11573; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3D42AG32737; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net Cc: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > > > > > that's scary . . . > > > > I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical > > hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even > > harder to read. > > Pity's sake, Steve, I was trying to have some fun there. Excuse me > for failing to append the ;-) to it. And, no, I don't want > philosophical hand wringing (whatever that is) any more than I want > dogma, I want _information_, I want _instruction_, and I want it > clear, concise, and step by step, with each step explained fully, so > that when I'm done working through it, I have understanding and > confidence. Sorry, it just wasn't apparent to me that your comment was meant in fun. I have seen different people approach teaching counterintuitive subjects in different ways. Some like to start with the theoretical basis and work towards practical understanding only after the theory has been completely explained. Others may try to give at least some practical understanding without explaining all the theory behind it first, the idea being that intuitive understanding often comes from being able to play with a concept even if you don't fully understand it yet. Taylor and Wheeler seem to prefer the latter approach. If you read the whole book you will find that they don't just wave something in front of you never to explain it in full, but they do present some things as matters of fact so you can practice working with them, then explain why things happen that way later. It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic physics that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics lectures. It also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in physics in the first couple of chapters. > > You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well > > enough to properly criticize it. > > Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, > labeled "a" as space and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied > Pythagorean theorem, and got space-time as the hypotenuse, "c". Very > elegant, very simple. Unfortunately I don't think you've fairly summarized what Lorentz did. Lorentz originally derived the Lorentz transform to obtain a formulation of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism that would be invariant with respect to velocity. Only later did Einstein propose the (for the time) radical idea that the Lorentz transform could be used to transform space and time coordinates in general, producing predictions for high speeds that would be very different from the then-conventional Newtonian predictions. Also note that the spacetime interval is _not_ Pythagorean; for a vector (t, x, y, z) the interval is sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2), not the hypotenuse sqrt(t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2). The negative signs make all the difference; they are the underlying mathematical reason counterintutive things happen in relativity, such as curved paths through spacetime being shorter than straight ones. The geometry of spacetime, even in special relativity, is not Euclidean. > What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. Here's how I > see it: > > (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the > question, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that > matter, even "How many seconds are in a meter?") Even in unified units, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?" is meaningless, because the left-hand side would have units of distance while the right-hand side has units of distance^3; you can't ask "how many meters in a cubic meter", either. However, there is an answer to "How many seconds are in a meter?" -- there are 299,792,458 meters in a second, so a meter is 1/299,792,458 seconds. > (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms This is really what the "parable of the surveyors" that opens _Spacetime Physics_ is about. Pre-relativistic physics considered time and space to be completely unlike and incomparable things, just as the daytimers measured north-south distances in one set of units and east-west distances in another. Post-relativistic physics says that there's a very nice way of expressing the relationships of relativity if you treat time as another kind of distance coordinate, with the speed of light (299,792,458 meters/second) as the conversion factor between units of time and distance. Then c is the unitless constant 1, velocities are also unitless, and many things get simpler to express while remaining mathematically equivalent. Some textbooks use c * t explicitly in their equations; Taylor and Wheeler happen to like a formulation where this is expressed implicitly. > (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an > equation > > therefor, > > (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant > interval, are illegal. Well, if you use faulty assumptions, you reach faulty conclusions. Have you ever seen the Galilean transforms that are the Newtonian analogue to the Lorentz transforms? You might see that they also combine measurements of time and distance using velocity as a conversion factor: x' = x - v * t t' = t Is that supposed to be illegal too? If you read more carefully, you'll see that the unified-units presentation of relativity does not mix measurements of time in seconds and distance in meters -- units of time in seconds need to be multiplied by c to obtain units of time in meters; one must measure both time and distance in meters for things to come out right. One can even choose to measure both time and distance in seconds (by dividing distances in meters by c) which is occasionally convenient too. From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["645" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "07:18:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 645 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DCJwb17527 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DCJu417522 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA27762; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , Cc: "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:18:17 -0500 Curtis, > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Curtis Manges writes: > > Steve VanDevender wrote: [clip] > It also occurs to me that there is another book on > relativistic physics > that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy > Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics > lectures. It > also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in > physics in > the first couple of chapters. I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) Lee From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["961" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "09:49:46" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 961 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DFiWP06402 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DFiU406366 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA05963 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:44:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F5EC9A.A2EDCD81@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "'starship'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:49:46 -0600 "L. Parker" wrote: > It also occurs to me that there is another book o > I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this > one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in > my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) > I am challenged with higher math than grade 12,but I still can use equations to figure things out. Sure the fine details can be complex and approximations used, but difficulty is often the teacher not the student in higher learning. SR is based on two things: 1) The speed of light is constant for who ever measures it. 2) The right triangle formed by two people measuring the same light beam. Autodynamics (AD) Is just based on the speed of light is a constant. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Apr 13 11:22:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1332" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "11:18:42" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1332 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DIIfq25379 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DIIe425368 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3DIIcB03611 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DIIhh02367; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14582.3970.467880.791645@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > > It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic > > physics that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six > > Not-So-Easy Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech > > physics lectures. It also has an excellent discussion of > > mathematical symmetry in physics in the first couple of chapters. > > I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this > one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in > my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) I can't say that I like _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ better than _Spacetime Physics_, but some of the explanations Feynman uses are quite clever. The lecture series Feynman gave was done in the early 1960s and the presentation of relativity was conventional for the time, meaning that it uses "relativistic mass" instead of invariant mass, and I think Feynman initially oversimplifies the presentation of relativity ("all you need is to replace 'mass' with 'relativistic mass'"). However, his explanation of the fundamental concepts of general relativity is really nifty, and he does provide some material that I think is a good transition between the old-style presentation of relativity and the newer, geometric interpretation used in Taylor and Wheeler. From VM Thu Apr 13 14:58:05 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1388" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "16:20:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1388 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DLNFU13492 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DLND413451 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p450.gnt.com [204.49.91.66]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA24504; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:23:09 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bfa58e$5fd050d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <14582.3970.467880.791645@tzadkiel.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:20:50 -0500 > Steve VanDevender wrote: (and Ben) > L. Parker writes: [clip] > I can't say that I like _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ better than > _Spacetime > Physics_, but some of the explanations Feynman uses are quite clever. > The lecture series Feynman gave was done in the early 1960s and the > presentation of relativity was conventional for the time, meaning that > it uses "relativistic mass" instead of invariant mass, and I think > Feynman initially oversimplifies the presentation of relativity ("all > you need is to replace 'mass' with 'relativistic mass'"). > However, his > explanation of the fundamental concepts of general relativity > is really > nifty, and he does provide some material that I think is a good > transition between the old-style presentation of relativity and the > newer, geometric interpretation used in Taylor and Wheeler. My problem isn't mathematical or even philosophical as in Curtis' case. I can do differentials, and integrals with ease, matrix algebra and discrete logic don't bother me a bit. My problem is I simply don't "get" it. The intuitive leap that everyone keeps talking about, just doesn't happen. I can follow the math, I just don't _believe_ it. Actually the geometric interpretation was somewhat easier to understand. When I get a little more time on my hands (ha ha), I intend to get Steve, Timothy and Zenon to help me out here.... Lee From VM Thu Apr 13 17:11:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10390" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "20:06:25" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "312" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10390 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3E06kB10719 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3E06j410711 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.62.26d2558 (3972); Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62.26d2558.2627bb01@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3E06k410714 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:06:25 EDT In a message dated 4/11/00 7:08:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, labeled " > a" as space > and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied Pythagorean theorem, and got space- > time as the > hypotenuse, "c". Very elegant, very simple. > > What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. He did not get away with it. We caught him. > Here's how I see it: > > (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the question, > "How many > seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that matter, even "How many seconds > are in a > meter?") True, Time=Mass/Distance defined from ancient times and expressed as the fourth dimension algebraicly by Einstein. Earth moving through earth orbit distance=one year. Earth moving through one rotation distance= day Moon moving through 1 earth orbit distance=month > > (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms Time is time and space is space space-time is a run together nonsense word > > (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an equation > > therefor, It is. > > (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant interval, > are illegal. Equations contain only variables and constants. No equation contains invariants for it means non varying so is not a variable. It is not a constant like whole numbers 1,2,3 so used with interval perhaps it is the imaginary Quantum space in-between them. Most likely it is nonsense-mathamatical gobbledygook like Quantum physics. All real world physics is can be expressed completely in equations with variables of exponets 0,1,2,3 representing the 4 known dimensions. Originating from Lorenz the word is popularized by his followers also known as closet "etherists" who claims scientific thought is jumping to conclusions like "because sound needs air to travel through then light needs something to travel through." Such conjuring produces ether. Fantasy world physics of up to infinite dimensions is also produced by Quantum equations with exponents higher than 3. > > I can't get any more concise than this in my presentation of my > misunderstanding, and this > should now allow you to precisely target my error and correct it. Whoever > does so will get > a gold star for the day, I will immediately buy the whole ball of wax, and > we can all be > happy together and go on to other things. Okay? Stick to your guns you are without error in your thinking unless Einstein also was which is doubtfull. On to other things. I mentioned a juvenile book I read published in 1961 or 62 by Female author recording Einstein's death bed confession claiming invention of atomic bomb (impact not chain reaction nonsense) and other matters stating he never claimed that objects cannot exceed light speed because it was possible that a machine other than a particle accelerator could be found to exceed light speed and why and how. Besides female author the only thing I could recall was he chose her because she talked to children rather than down to them like Marie Hammontree did. She was selected over Marie for Marie's biography of him was childish gibberish. His last choice had published many science books for children with even advanced physics successfully taught. For those interested. My Library of congress search (Einstein 1961, or 1962 )results list members have requested for that book and the reader can come to his own conclusions and do any leg work to library as I memorized the best parts. Records 21 through 21 of 53 returned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- [from old catalog] Title: ¯Aipart Ainstain. Published: [1962] Description: p. cm. LC Call No.: QC16.E5F7318 Notes: Romanized. Subjects: Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955. [from old catalog] Other authors: Mahadevan, R., [from old catalog] tr. Control No.: 6186360 Tagged display | Previous Record | Next Record | Brief Record Display | New Search ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- This Query Results Records 1 through 20 of 33 returned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Uniform Title: Real magnet book Title: The book of magnets, by Mae Freeman. Pictures by Norman Bridwell. Published: New York, Four Winds Press [1968, c1967] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Bm More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: A book of real science, by Mae Freeman. Pictures by John Moodie. Published: New York, Four Winds Press [1966] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Bo More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Do you know about stars? Illustrated by George Solonovich. Published: New York, Random House [1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Dl More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Do you know about water? Illustrated by Ernest Kurt Barth. Published: New York, Random House [1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Do More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Finding out about shapes [by] Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Bill Morrison. Published: New York, McGraw-Hill [1969] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Fi More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Finding out about the past. Published: New York, Random House [1967] LC Call No.: GN743.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun and experiments with light, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1963] LC Call No.: QC357.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with astronomy, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1953] LC Call No.: QB46.F77 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with ballet. Published: New York, Random House [1952] LC Call No.: GV1781.F66 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with chemistry, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1944] LC Call No.: QD38.F68 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with cooking, by Mae Blacker Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1947] LC Call No.: TX652.5.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with figures, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1946] LC Call No.: QA95.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with science, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1943] LC Call No.: QC25.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with science; [easy experiments for young people] by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House, 1956. LC Call No.: QC25.F7 1956 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with scientific experiments, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1960] LC Call No.: Q163.F76 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with your camera, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1955] LC Call No.: TR149.F85 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Gravity and the astronauts, by Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Beatrice Darwin. Published: New York, Crown [1971, c1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Gr3 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Space base, by Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Raul Mina Mora. Published: New York, Watts, 1972. LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Sp More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Stars and stripes. Published: New York, Random House [1964] LC Call No.: CR113.F85 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: The story of Albert Einstein; the scientist who searched out the secrets of the universe. Published: New York, Random House [1958] LC Call No.: QC16.E5F73 1958 For more LIbrary of Congress searches. See link http://lcweb.loc.gov/cgi-bin/zgate?srchagain+191628+/prod/www/data/z3950/locil s.html Tom From VM Fri Apr 14 10:12:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4095" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "21:24:50" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4095 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3E1RA711430 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3E1R9411420 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.130]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000414012701.SZBU6491.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:27:01 +0000 Message-ID: <38F67361.5E182423@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:24:50 -0400 Well. Steve, the gold star is yours, and thanks for your help and indulgence. Now I get to start over, I guess. I figured out why it's been such a hassle for me to even get my objections into a clear statement; I think I'm at the steepest part of the learning curve with this, the place where you don't yet know enough to ask intelligent questions. The secret source of life's most embarrassing moments. I was a little nervous waiting for a reply to my statement. I didn't see how I could possibly be altogether correct, given that this stuff has been worked over by the greatest minds of the twentieth century, and my own not being one of them, for sure! > I have seen different people approach teaching counterintuitive subjects > in different ways. Some like to start with the theoretical basis and > work towards practical understanding only after the theory has been > completely explained. Others may try to give at least some practical > understanding without explaining all the theory behind it first, the > idea being that intuitive understanding often comes from being able to > play with a concept even if you don't fully understand it yet. And now I'm not sure _which_ kind of book would work best for me, as my preference in texts came out of my experience with more intuitive subject matter. > It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic physics > that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy > Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics lectures. It > also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in physics in > the first couple of chapters. Maybe I need a "Spacetime Physics for Dummies" . . . (I'd better watch myself, it's probably in print!) > Also note that the spacetime interval is _not_ Pythagorean; this made the most difference for me, immediately, at least. I said, "Ah, _that's_ where I screwed up." As you said, if you use faulty assumptions, you reach faulty conclusions. I just needed to know where my assumptions were at fault. As for the rest, it's going to take me a while to absorb. Part of my problem is that it's been about twenty years since my mostly unused formal education; my math skills are gone to rust and I've forgotten too much of the other basic stuff that would make this easier for me. Another part of my problem is in getting used to thinking this way; I've always been uncomfortable with abstractions. This brings me to the topic of counterintuitive thinking. Now, I'm a real fan of intuition and instinct, these are great things, parts of a marvelous package of powerful tools (including intellect, of course) which have made it possible for our species to evolve to where we are today. I've had to admit, though, that you don't even need to get sub-orbital, as in Zenon Kulpa's examples, before intuition fails; it begins to break down the minute you do something as simple as putting a couple of wheels under you. I recently bought a motor scooter, and I love to ride, but learning how to steer one is the most counterintuitive thing I've ever done: to make it go _right_, you push the wheel to the _left_. I tried to figure that out, and my poor brain just fizzled. The best I've been able to do is to state the conditions, thus: at any speed above that of a walk, the steering characteristic can reverse dramatically, and it has nothing to do with your speed or the sharpness of the curve, and everything to do with the amount of acceleration you apply. If the front wheel feels acceleration, the bike will tend to go left when steered right; during deceleration, it will go right when steered right. This is why they tell you not to brake when you're in a turn; I did one day and almost got a flying lesson out of it. This is schizophrenic. And bikers wonder why people think they're crazy? It's an intuitive judgment, of course! My conclusion is that intuition fails for _any_ kind of mechanized travel, so I suppose that the sooner we get used to the idea, the better, _especially_ for space travel. Anyway, thanks again, and keep looking up Curtis From VM Fri Apr 14 10:12:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2400" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "16:59:56" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2400 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EGCc324115 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.sky.co.uk (ns1.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.171]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EGCa424101 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_ldbal.sky.co.uk [195.153.219.190]) by ns1.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28042 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:29:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:57 +0100 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <28TSD98A>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:56 +0100 Hi all, I've finally gotten around to posting a contribution to the recent discussions. As I understand it, when we talk about 'faster-than-light' travel to the stars, we are doing so from our reference point here on Earth. To summarise the previous discussions briefly: if a spacecraft was launched towards the nearest star (call it 4 light years away), and travelled there and back (assume instant turn-around time!) in less than 8 years, we would say that it has travelled faster than light. I'm assuming it hasn't used a wormhole or other such shortcut. However, say the spacecraft travels at the 0.894c mentioned in previous posts. Then to us observers here on Earth, it would return after about 8.944 years. To the crew on-board, the journey would only last about 4 years. So, as far as the crew are concerned, they have effectively (but not actually, to us) travelled faster than light - because of time-dilation. The point I'm thinking about is that if you're purely an explorer, and don't care about being able to sensibly communicate with people back on Earth, then it doesn't matter if you can't employ FTL travel as long as you can travel very close to 'c'. For, due to time dilation, you can comfortably cover vast distances in what seems like a reasonable amount of time to you (as the crew in Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" did). You have, in a sense, your FTL ship. You get to travel round the universe and see a lot of sights in your lifetime :) Thinking along more practical lines though, such interstellar travel is more likely to be funded by a corporation of some kind rather than a very wealthy (and lucky) individual who gets the chance to do the aforementioned jaunt. The point being that the corporation is going to want some kind of financial return in the foreseeable future for stumping up the cash to begin with. They're going to want a *true* FTL ship - something that can travel from Earth to a destination hundreds of light-years away and back within a decade (say). They don't care that travelling at a mere 0.9999c will make the trip seem considerably shorter for the crew if they don't get their investment back for a several centuries. To sum up: we're discussing FTL travel from the point of view of being on Earth. Travelling four light years at 0.89c and having the *crew* think they're burning along at 2c (due to time dilation) isn't FTL. Regards, Chris From VM Fri Apr 14 15:06:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4499" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "17:00:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "83" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4499 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EM3NK27858 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EM3M427849 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p468.gnt.com [204.49.91.84]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA05405; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bfa65d$2735f480$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Walker, Chris'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:00:55 -0500 Chris, Well you just summed up the difficulty with slowboat travel. (That is what the SF writers call travel at less than c.) We have had many discussions about the philosophical and economical ramifications of the light speed limit. But there is more to it than that, which I will get around to in a minute. To recap previous arguments: 1) Travel to the stars at less than c is SLOW. 2) Travel to the stars in a ship designed to take decades or centuries to reach its destination is EXPENSIVE. 3) Other than the quest for knowledge (something of dubious value in hard currency) there is NO reason to go to another star. 4) Ergo, only government funded exploration missions are likely in the next few hundred years. 5) It is possible that as our space borne presence increases there will be a sufficient drop in the cost of said missions that SOME private or commercially funded expeditions may become feasible. Feasible does not mean the same thing as likely! 6) If there is an incentive to encourage such a venture, such as stipulated ownership of the system by its colonizing agent, then it might become LIKELY. Even then, there would be some doubt. 7) The cost in time to ROI (Return On Investment) is one of the key driving factors in business development decisions, that WILL NOT change. Only a very few multinational companies currently even attempt to plan beyond ten years, I know of none that plan for a hundred or more... This all sounds familiar so far, but now let us look at a few ECONOMIC points in detail. Let us assume that we DO have FTL transportation. Great, now we can get there and back in let us say one month per light year of distance (pick a velocity, it really doesn't matter much). So Alpha Centauri is now only 4 months away. Let us speculate further that there is a habitable planet circling Alpha Centauri. The only cost we have removed from the equation is time. The corporations are still looking for their ROI. It will cost say (for example) 100 billion dollars to establish a well-equipped colony capable of sustaining itself, not including the cost of the ship which we will assume for the moment is irrelevant. Now, what is this colony going to provide to the company that established it that will allow it to recoup it investment of 100 billion dollars AND show a profit of AT LEAST 25 billion dollars? Certainly not exported materials, the cost of transport would have to be cheaper than intrasystem transport within Sol space ( 4 minutes, or 4 hours away) which isn't very likely. Food? They will be lucky to feed themselves, and the same argument about transportation cost still applies. Luxury goods? Hmm, strange thing for a new colony to be making, but even so, 125 billion dollars worth? Maybe this isn't very economical after all. Now let us look at the ship. It cost how much to build? It is the size (at least) of an aircraft carrier and probably costs at least as much, probably considerably more, but lit us just say it was 100 billion dollars (nice number). Now they owners of the ship have to amortize the cost of the ship across its lifespan and realize a profit also. Seagoing vessels average about 30 year lifespans, some as high as fifty or sixty after major refits. At an operating margin of fifteen percent (typical) it will take from twelve to twenty years to repay the cost of the ship. At twenty years it will require major refitting to bring it current with other newer ships so that it can stay competitive which will extend the financing cost an additional six year or so. During the same interval, that ship could carry 800 times as much cargo on a local route (such as the Oort Cloud) within the solar system and make 800 times as much profit. I submit that until we either run out of resources within nearby Sol space or find something of dramatic value elsewhere, this is NOT a good investment decision. We aren't likely to exhaust local resources anytime soon.... Before someone goes and tries to pick me to death, all of the above figures are GUESSES, yours are as good as mine, neither is provable. I tried to err in the FAVOR of star travel if I could, the actuality is probably MUCH worse. The costs are probably in the trillions, not billions, and initial profit margins are likely to be much lower due to unexpectedly high operating costs. To make this feasible, it must cost EXACTLY as much for delivery to/from solar orbit as it does to/from any star's orbit in terms of money AND time. Or it won't work. Lee From VM Fri Apr 14 15:59:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19529" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "17:51:10" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "415" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 93 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 19529 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EMtJV22184 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EMtH422167 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA13784 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:55:09 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bfa664$5ce0ccc0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 93 (fwd) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:51:10 -0500 Space Access Update #93 4/13/00 Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ (SAS's eighth annual conference, "Space Access 2000", will be at the Holiday Inn Old Town in Scottsdale Arizona April 27-29 - see http://www.space-access.org for details. Call 800 695-6995 for a room at our $69 "space access" rate - the hotel is over 90% full for our dates and rooms are going fast - reserve now!) ________________________________________________________________________ Contents: - SAU #92 Space Launch Initiative Policy Clarification - Space Access 2000 Conference Preview ________________________________________________________________________ SAS's Space Launch Initiative Policy Clarification We got a fair amount of response to our last Update, #92, (available at http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau92.html) outlining our initial response to NASA's proposed new five-year plan for advanced launch development, their Space Launch Initiative (SLI). We made one outright error, calling NASA's SLI-precursor Integrated Space Transportation Plan "Advanced" rather than "Integrated" - it's ISTP, not ASTP. Oops. And some of our readers were good enough to point out places where we'd been unclear; one of these in particular is critical, and a clarification follows. The core of our argument is that NASA SLI is based on two incorrect assumptions: 1), that NASA and US commercial launch technology requirements can be successfully shotgun-wedding "converged" by NASA, and following from this that 2), a single program centered around forcing US commercial requirements to fit NASA's internal requirements won't be another predictable waste of taxpayer dollars. We pointed to history to make our case; both the disastrous pre-1986 shutdown of the US ELV industry in favor of forcing all commercial launches onto Shuttle, and the increasingly obvious failure of the current X-33/Venturestar NASA/commercial program, indicate major problems with forced NASA-commercial covergence. We did not, however, go into detail about the requirements incompatibilities. In brief, we see them as being: - In terms of system performance, NASA tends to require large payloads both up to and down from the relatively difficult-to-reach Station orbit. This biases SLI towards large, high-performance, high- investment (multiple billions) systems and prejudices it against smaller, relaxed-performance, lower-investment (hundreds of millions) systems that might nevertheless find profitable commercial market niches and serve important national low-cost launch needs. - In terms of political control, the problem is obvious: No sensible commercial operator wants to share a launch system with NASA when the agency could disrupt commercial schedules for agency needs at any time. The mass exodus by the airlines from the CRAF military-callup program after CRAF was activated for the Gulf War is a case in point. - In terms of staffing and costs, NASA Shuttle/Station's launch requirements include the unspoken but very real need to maintain something like current staff levels at the various NASA centers involved, for bureaucratic continuity and political patronage reasons. These staff levels, while low by historic NASA standards, are far too high for practical commercial efforts. Put another way, NASA is more cost-sensitive than it used to be, but is still far less so than a profitable commercial enterprise would have to be. We think that, in view of the preceding, the solution we offer makes eminent good sense: Split off support for NASA launch technology needs from support for US commercial launch technology needs - form two distinct programs with two very different approaches - and divide the available funding appropriately. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access 2000 Conference Preview Our eighth annual conference on radically cheaper space access is just two weeks away, and it's about time we told you a bit more about the presentations we've lined up. First, though, a quick note - if what you see here sounds worthwhile, there's still time to get that Friday off, book an affordable airfare to Phoenix, and reserve yourself a room at our fine conference hotel. Registration and hospitality open Thursday evening April 27th at six, Thursday intro sessions commence at eight pm, and main sessions run all day and evening Friday the 28th and Saturday the 29th. If you're worried about finding a room if our hotel fills up too soon, a quick web search reveals there are nine other hotels within a half- mile. Mind, if you do have to book a room elsewhere, we do advise you to check again the day you arrive; often tourist no-shows will open rooms at the last second. And if you're worried about spending a few days of our warm dry Arizona spring stuck in the middle of nowhere, that quick web search also reveals that there are 84 (no typo, that's eighty-four) restaurants and a stunning variety of shopping within a half mile of our conference hotel. Did we mention that our $69 hotel rate is good three days before and after the conference? You don't really need a rental car here; you can get in from the Phoenix aiport via cab or "Super Shuttle" van, unless of course you want to go further afield while you're here and explore the variety of Arizona golf courses, horseback riding, historical sites, and scenic wonders nearby. Check out http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa2000.html for details and for any last-second additions or changes. See you there! In alphabetical order, here's our list of confirmed presentations as of April 12th: - Dana Andrews - Andrews Space & Technology Dana Andrews was Boeing's longtime chief engineer for Reusable Launch until he retired this winter and joined his son's consulting firm, Andrews Space & Technology. (Tom Healy, formerly of Rockwell, took over his post at Boeing. Both Dana and Tom have spoken at previous Space Access conferences.) Dana tells us AS&T has an RLV concept that meets current noise regs doing runway takeoff, and at 650,000 lbs gross liftoff weight can do NASA baseline Station missions. He says, if you want to find out how AS&T proposes to do this, catch his talk. - Mitchell Burnside Clapp - Pioneer Rocket Plane Mitchell Burnside Clapp is an ex-USAF flight test engineer, an incorrigible proponent of innovative approaches to reusable space launch, and the founder and President of Pioneer Rocket Plane, a company pursuing an aerial propellant-transfer commercial reusable spaceplane. Mitch will be giving two talks, one on Pioneer's status and plans, one on "Optimizing Trajectories For Low Isp Launch Vehicles", (or, Where Does That 1000 FPS Savings Come From Anyway?) - Len Cormier, MMI Mr. Cormier has dedicated much of the past 40 years to the pursuit of lower cost access to space. He began in the space business at the National Academy of Sciences in 1956 and at NASA headquarters in 1959. In the early-mid 1960s he was project engineer for space transport systems at the LA Division of North American Aviation. After that he worked as a project engineer and program manager for Fighter Systems at North American-Rockwell. Mr. Cormier formed his own company in 1967 to pursue commercial space launch consulting, which he has continued ever since with a variety of projects. Len was a charter member and a re-appointed member of the Dept. of Transportation's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, COMSTAC. Mr. Cormier will present on the Millennium Express TSTO and the XVan2001 entry to the X PRIZE contest, and will take part in our panel on what the government might do to help the low-cost launch industry. - Experimental Rocket Propulsion Society ERPS is an amateur non-profit (for the moment) rocket company run out of the San Francisco Bay Area; they're working on small peroxide engines and catalysts, as well as controls, guidance, tankage, airframes, and flight-test/regulatory issues for small reusable-rocket flight demonstrators. They'll be presenting data on a new catalyst that works with 90% and 98% peroxide, and presenting data and showing video from recent engine tests. - Bill Gaubatz - Universal Space Lines Bill Gaubatz is perhaps best known as McDonnell-Douglas's program manager for the DC-X reusable rocket flight demonstration project. He currently works reusable launch for USL, founded by another member of the DC-X team, the late (and much missed) Pete Conrad. Bill will be talking about USL's plans, including their MSX ultra-low-cost reusable rocket operations demonstrator, a vehicle transportable in the back of a pickup truck, intended to explore high flight-rate vertical- takeoff/vertical-landing operations up through supersonic speeds. - Jeff Greason - XCOR Aerospace Jeff Greason is boss of XCOR Aerospace, founded by ex-Rotary Rocket engineers in Mojave California - Jeff managed Rotary's rotary engine development project - with the goal of working up to low-cost reusable space launch incrementally. They're currently working on a project to build a runway-capable replica of the Bell X-1 rocketplane, as a way of both making money and demonstrating their capabilities. The Scottsdale fire marshal willing, they should have an interesting hardware demo for us. - Gary Hudson - Rotary Rocket Company Gary needs little introduction; he's the founder and CEO of Rotary Rocket Company, which last year brought the Roton ATV landing- mode/structures/systems testbed (for Rotary's planned Roton rocket SSTO space transport) to successful initial flight test. Gary is a longtime advocate of single-stage-to-orbit reusable rockets, has founded several commercial rocket companies, and if the current parched funding climate ever breaks, is still a good bet to be among the first making money flying reusable rockets to orbit. - Jordin Kare - Laser Launch: A Near-Term Approach Jordin Kare has degrees in physics and electrical engineering from MIT, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from UC Berkeley. He became a designer of advanced space systems during 11 years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which included 5 years as the head of the SDIO Laser Propulsion Program. He left LLNL in 1996 to become chief scientist for RDL Space, a startup attempting to build a commercial synthetic aperture radar satellite system. Since 1997 he has been a freelance consultant to the aerospace industry and government - contact jtkare@ibm.net. His talk will describe an approach to laser-powered ground-to-orbit launch that parallels other CATS concepts -- not necessarily the most elegant approach, but cheap and doable now. - Kelly Space & Technology Founded by Michael Kelly, an ex-TRW space systems engineer, KS&T is best known for pursuing the "Eclipse" towed air-start reusable winged rocket approach to low-cost space launch. While this project is moving forward about as fast - not very - as the various other entrepreneurial RLV projects in the current dry funding climate, KS&T has also pursued various consulting projects, including NASA's ongoing Space Transportation Architecture Studies (STAS), and Mike tells us that KS&T expects to be in the black this year. - Tim Kyger - Universal Space Network Universal Space Network, a sister company to USL, is proving that the best space business to be in at current launch costs is still the one that involves a massless product, space communications. USN has contracts in hand plus a recent infusion of $15 million in venture capital, and is rapidly expanding its capabilities for low-cost flexible spacecraft communications. Tim Kyger is the Washington political liaison for the USL group of companies and does marketing for USN. In previous lives he's been a space political activist and a Congressional space staffer. He'll be presenting on USN, and taking part in panel discussions. - Dr. John S. Lewis, University of Arizona John Lewis is a noted planetary scientist and author (Mining The Sky, Rain Of Iron And Ice, Resources Of Near Earth Space, others) who will be talking to us on the subject of What Can Be Done With Cosmic Rocks?: Recent Advances, so if we do manage to get off this particular rock anytime soon, we might have some idea what to do next. - Charles Miller, CSI Chaz Miller is a longtime space activist, founder and former head of the ProSpace lobbying organization, and current entrepreneur and CEO of CSI, a company working on getting into the on-orbit operations business. Chaz will be presenting on The Market Economics Of On-Orbit Satellite Servicing. - Elaine Walker-Mullen, Zia Elaine Walker-Mullen is founding member of the pro-space-electronic- pop band, ZIA, and president of the New York City Chapter of the National Space Society. Elaine will be taking us to the stars (or at least Low Earth Orbit) as she sings, evenings in our hospitality suite. http://www.ziaspace.com - Leik Myrabo, RPI We aren't even going to try to spell what RPI stands for, but it's upstate New York's answer to MIT, and Leik Myrabo is a professor there who specializes in very, very advanced propulsion methods. If you ever wondered where SF/technothriller author Dean Ing gets those wild ideas, Myrabo and Ing coauthored a classic book called "The Future Of Flight" back around 1980 or so, a book that described a number of very advanced ways of getting there from here *fast* that physics said were possible but that engineering state-of-the-art said "not yet". Engineering has been catching up - Leik Myrabo has recently had access to a 10 kilowatt laser at White Sands Missile Range to work on laser thermal propulsion, and a 100 kilowatt laser at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to do the first-ever demo of direct light-pressure "light sail" propulsion, displacing a JPL-developed carbon-fiber mesh suspended in a vacuum with no measurable mass-loss to the mesh. Myrabo is also doing "MHD Slipstream Accelerator" work at RPI, which as we understand it involves electrically directing and accelerating plasma flows around hypersonic vehicles. He'll be talking about what he's up to in all of these areas. - NASA Future-X The NASA MSFC "Future-X" X-37 project will be sending someone out to talk to us about goals and progress. X-37 is an autonomous reusable upper stage testbed, derived from the USAF AFRL Phillips X-40a, designed to have considerable ability to reach orbit (given a boost a good part of the way), conduct maneuvers there, then reenter and land. - Orbital Sciences Corp OSC will be sending someone out to talk about their "Future-X" X-34 project to build an autonomous, air-launched mach 8 winged reusable rocket testbed, and about their NASA "Space Transportation Architecture Studies" (STAS) results so far - Orbital is advocating a flexibly-launched general-purpose "Space Taxi" Crew and Cargo Transfer Vehicle as the next step in increasing manned-space flexibility and assuring NASA Human Spaceflight's continued ability to do its job. - Jim Ransom, Ransom Systems Engineering Jim Ransom is a consultant who has worked for the Air Force Space and Missiles Center and for various RLV startups; his presentation, Lean Development: Doing Better Faster Cheaper Right, is a how-to applicable to lean fast-paced technology developments in general. - Bob Ray, TGV Rockets TGV Rockets was founded to pursue cheap space access in an incremental, bottom-up manner. They've chosen a reusable medium- payload transportable sounding rocket as their initial commercial venture. - Dave Salt Dave has been at various times associated with British Aerospace and with the European Space Agency; he comes over to talk to us about The Year In European Space, how things are going over there, just so we don't feel so bad about how hard RLV funding is to come by over here. - Space Access LLC No relation, honest! SA LLC is a Palmdale California based reusable launch company that is pursuing an airbreathing runway-takeoff hypersonic aircraft approach to low-cost space launch. - Henry Spencer Henry Spencer is a systems programmer, long-time space enthusiast, and amateur space historian of note ("I corrected Henry" t-shirts take considerable earning). He was head of mission planning for the late lamented Canadian Solar Sail Project, and software architect for the MOST astronomy satellite ("Canada's first space telescope"). He'll be giving his by-now traditional Thursday evening talk, Introduction To Space & Continuing Controversies. - Henry Vanderbilt, SAS Henry Vanderbilt is founder and Executive Director of Space Access Society. He used to be involved in electronics hardware and software engineering, but he made the mistake of taking up writing about space for a new on-line network in 1985, then took a job at L-5 Society HQ and then at National Space Society, then went back to software for a few years while he worked with the CACNSP, studied, and thought things over. In 1992 he made the additional mistake of being underemployed and having the right experience mix when it became far too obvious that full-time focussed advocacy was essential on the vital central question of affordable space access. Thus SAS was born on the Fourth of July, 1992. Vanderbilt looks forward to the day when he'll have old friends he can bum a ride to orbit from - at that point, his job will be done and he can go back to making money, having health insurance, and not living like a starving student anymore. He will at some point talk about SAS's perspective on The Current Scene, conduct an Ask The Executive Director session for SAS members, and take part in a panel or two. - Panel: What Can (Or Should) the Government Do To Help? Government played a large role in the advancement of aeronautics in the US. Are they currently doing anything analogous for space transportation? If not, could they? Would doing nothing at all be better that their current efforts? Our panel (TBA) deliberates. - Panel: The Current RLV Investment Climate: What Now? Thus far, most money available for cheap launch ventures has been of the individual-investor "angel" sort, and it hasn't been enough yet to get any reusable rockets to orbit. What will it take to turn average investors aside from the dot-com lemming rush and lure them into a cheap-launch lemming rush? Our panel of entrepreneurs, tech investors, and political mavens ponder this question. - Mitchell Burnside Clapp, Low-Cost Launch Entrepreneur - Stephen Fleming, Alliance Technology Ventures - Gary Hudson, Low-Cost Launch Entrepreneur - Tim Kyger, Beltway Space Politics Wonk - Joe Pistritto, Technology Investor - Henry Vanderbilt, Space Technology & Policy Wonk ________________________________________________________________________ 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 A. Heinlein From VM Fri Apr 14 16:22:42 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5885" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "19:16:26" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "115" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5885 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3ENGlT03696 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3ENGk403681 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.66.2b50e9c (3975); Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <66.2b50e9c.262900ca@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:16:26 EDT In a message dated 4/14/00 9:14:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM writes: > > The point I'm thinking about is that if you're purely an explorer, and don't > care about being able to sensibly communicate with people back on Earth, > then it doesn't matter if you can't employ FTL travel as long as you can > travel very close to 'c'. For, due to time dilation, you can comfortably > cover vast distances in what seems like a reasonable amount of time to you > (as the crew in Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" did). You have, in a sense, your > FTL ship. You get to travel round the universe and see a lot of sights in > your lifetime :) > > Thinking along more practical lines though, such interstellar travel is more > likely to be funded by a corporation of some kind rather than a very wealthy > (and lucky) individual who gets the chance to do the aforementioned jaunt. Hi Cris. All is needed is a practical engine. Patent rights to an individual on a starship class engine drives the cost of solar system exploration, mining, and colonization to fractions of pennies per pound (yea you heard that about nuclear power). Anyway on to business-funding for a star mission can be taken from license profits alone. I do not believe that ground bounders can prevent that from happening. Mankind has dipped their toes in the ocean of space and ran back to mother earth like children on the seashore afraid to swim. Some dream of traveling to the stars. I just hope I am in the correct mailing list for believers. I was beginning to doubt from all the negativity about the possibility of star travel. What a demoralized group. How Come? > The point being that the corporation is going to want some kind of financial > return in the foreseeable future for stumping up the cash to begin with. > They're going to want a *true* FTL ship - something that can travel from > Earth to a destination hundreds of light-years away and back within a decade > (say). They don't care that travelling at a mere 0.9999c will make the trip > seem considerably shorter for the crew if they don't get their investment > back for a several centuries. > > To sum up: we're discussing FTL travel from the point of view of being on > Earth. Travelling four light years at 0.89c and having the *crew* think > they're burning along at 2c (due to time dilation) isn't FTL. True but it is the first step to realizing that FTL is possible for velocity aboard the ship can be correctly measured at 1c, 2c, 3c, .....n defined as warp speed 1,2,3 ..n. Steve's distance calculation of seen 1 point some odd light years for a true 4 light years distance does not hold to examination. Length is contracted by velocity on the ship only not the distance between the travel points. The rocket man measured the distance before and after stopping to determine the distance. measurement for him to measure the 4 light years with foreshortened rulers on board the distance would be greater than 4 light years not less as Steve has mixed frames of reference (like I just did with foreshortened rulers) to find a value supporting his theory of a c limit for rockets. His imagination (useful) is not trained and disciplined to a point where he can separate imaginary rockets from Einstein's thought experiments and focus on real rockets. I use the "Tau Ceti" example to get students used to the idea of and calculating measuring velocities greater than C. I then introduce them to negative velocities and prove by analytic geometry that when an object exceeds light speed wrt earth it cannot be observed. As there is not a velocity limit for rockets known then nothing is to prevent a rocket traveling greater than c wrt earth. I do not plan to shut my engine of while accelerating to beyond light just because Steve is having a hysterical fit aboard ship thinking it will not make it. (Star travel is no place for girlie boys) I may just do what Columbus did on way to America and feed the crew false distance and velocity measurements to prevent mutiny. Steve can then discover returning to earth from the stars that his earth bound relatives are much younger than he calculated possible. As Star ship commander my authority is absolute and is under Maritime Law extended into space beyond any national boarder jurisdiction. Punishment can range from me giving a shame finger (right index finger stroking top of left index finger) to instruction that you are endangering my ship, crew and mission so may be trapped in the fantasy world of my holodeck so turn in space suit and exit holodeck now and report to me. Exit by clicking Exit sign on holodeck at below link. http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/index.htm#7 A rocket traveling at accelerating at 1 g wrt earth for one year exceeds light speed (approx 1.2 C). shining a light for an earth observer towards earth the light travels at c toward earth but does not ever reach earth for the velocity of light wrt earth is neg point 2 c. This means that the light is indeed traveling toward the earth wrt the ship but because of its negative velocity is actually travelling away from the earth as velocity is scalar vector with both magnitude and direction. Freshman grasp the idea of negative velocities quicker than seniors for some reason in a basic physical science using cars and train examples. Were I to believe the cosmologists the stars at the edge of the universe from Doppler shift appear to be accelerating at near light speed. Objects beyond edge objects are concluded to exceed light speed though not visible for the above reasons. Siting in my chair my velocity wrt beyond visible universe edge objects is greater than light speed. Wrt a valid viewpoint (reference frame) I am exceeding light speed at this very moment. Tom > > Regards, > > Chris From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["277" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "13:46:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "6" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 277 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FHkn726733 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FHkm426727 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.a9.44563fc (4311); Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:46:09 EDT Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive and limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies would be impossible. Explorers only for a while. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["736" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "12:14:50" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 736 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FI9UE01663 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FI9S401658 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin43.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.43]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01475 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:09:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F8B19A.FAF611B5@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:14:50 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or > manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive and > limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies would > be impossible. Explorers only for a while. > > Kelly That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy and needs to charge $ for everything. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3289" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "14:59:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "61" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3289 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FK2qP00166 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FK2o400158 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA20461; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002001bfa715$7692d7b0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38F8B19A.FAF611B5@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:59:44 -0500 > Ben Franchuk wrote: > > That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works > have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa > painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy > and needs to charge $ for everything. > Oh, but the pyramids DID cost $, lots of it. It was made from stone and brick and mortar and the sweat and blood of craftsmen and slaves. All of these things had value then as they do now. The Sistine chapel was paid for in currency, the Mona Lisa (not a good example) was a commission. The difference is nil; typically, a GOVERNMENT paid for those monuments, just as the US government paid for that little flag sitting on Moon. I am not saying that we won't go to another star, I am saying that it will be government funded for a LONG time. It will continue to be done as a "monument" - "see, I was here", not as part of a commercial enterprise. The commercialization of space WILL happen, but it will be intrasystem for a long, long time. We will harvest our asteroids, our comets, our moons and eventually even the Oort cloud, but until interstellar travel becomes dirt cheap, at least as cheap as intrasystem travel, it won't be done by commercial concerns which unlike governments are driven by profit motives. Borrowing a page from SF writers, there is a point where it will become cheap enough to support a colony that is looking to escape Earth's influence or just do their own thing, but even these missions will come long after the first government sponsored probes return. The colonist's won't be driven by a profit motive, but will still be constrained by the cost of the mission, which most likely will be less within fifty to a hundred years. Time frame? I still believe that the first probes may leave within fifty years. Perhaps a manned science mission within 75 - 100 years. This presupposes that there are no "breakthroughs" of course. One of the key requirements will take fifty years to put in place - infrastructure. We have NO space-based manufacturing infrastructure at all. It will require a substantial presence in Earth orbit, solar orbit, lunar orbit, etc. to build any large interstellar vessel. It takes time to build such an infrastructure and TRILLIONS of dollars. Which means that there has to be some other, profit-based motivation capable of supporting such a large industrial base. As we have just seen, interstellar travel will not provide such a motive. Now let us talk about something that WILL provide a profit motive. Knowledge. If we were to discover not just an inhabitable planet, but an inhabited planet. Even if it wasn't as technically advanced as we, the cross-referencing of knowledge alone could be worth far more than anyone could imagine. An obscure drug to cure cancer, a better understanding of the process of life that leads to anti-aging treatments, a new chemical process that allows the creation of better computers. Who knows, the list is endless. Even though these are all speculative profits, corporations do understand them and routinely base their planning and spending upon them. To sum it up, government spending will get us to the stars, commercial motives will keep us there. There will likely be a definite ordered progression in the process. Lee From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1848" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "14:31:26" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1848 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FKQI206674 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FKQE406648 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin56.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.56]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08340; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:25:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F8D19E.8E7C2D5@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002001bfa715$7692d7b0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:31:26 -0600 > > We have NO space-based manufacturing infrastructure at all. It will require > a substantial presence in Earth orbit, solar orbit, lunar orbit, etc. to > build any large interstellar vessel. It takes time to build such an > infrastructure and TRILLIONS of dollars. Which means that there has to be > some other, profit-based motivation capable of supporting such a large > industrial base. As we have just seen, interstellar travel will not provide > such a motive. Well now is the time to design and dream about the infrastructure, because once investment is done, that will freeze development along one path and that may not be the way to go. ( this includes investment that bypasses space for other quicker get rich ideas ). > Now let us talk about something that WILL provide a profit motive. > Knowledge. If we were to discover not just an inhabitable planet, but an > inhabited planet. Even if it wasn't as technically advanced as we, the > cross-referencing of knowledge alone could be worth far more than anyone > could imagine. An obscure drug to cure cancer, a better understanding of the > process of life that leads to anti-aging treatments, a new chemical process > that allows the creation of better computers. Who knows, the list is > endless. That is a very good point. > > Even though these are all speculative profits, corporations do understand > them and routinely base their planning and spending upon them. To sum it up, > government spending will get us to the stars, commercial motives will keep > us there. There will likely be a definite ordered progression in the > process. > Well lets get the ball rolling... > Lee -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["837" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "20:58:08" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 837 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3G0wrn19794 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3G0wq419788 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.7e.3956f77 (3932); Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.3956f77.262a6a20@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:58:08 EDT In a message dated 4/15/00 1:09:38 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or >> manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive >and >> limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies >would >> be impossible. Explorers only for a while. >> >> Kelly > >That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works >have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa >painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy >and needs to charge $ for everything. Well the Mona Lisa was obviously a commercial project, and the other two were built for national prestigue or trying to suck up to god. Obviously not a good basis for exploratin or colonization. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1420" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "12:00:11" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1420 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GHslX09251 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GHsj409244 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA21440; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:54:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F9FFAB.8DDE2D42@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002501bfa7ad$459a63b0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:00:11 -0600 "L. Parker" wrote: > > > Well lets get the ball rolling... > > That is why I keep forwarding all those space access posts, If we don't get > started on the infrastructure, it will never happen. Low cost access to > space is the first step. > > BTW, you should look at Delta Clipper. They killed the best possibility for > a lander for an interstellar mission. Strong, robust, land anywhere and > single stage to orbit.... > > Lee It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the earth. When we get to interstellar travel a beamed energy craft that looks a lot like the general saucer shaped could be the ticket, or a electro-static fusion lander. For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable craft. Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach 1. Chemical rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and places it into orbit. It also handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod uses simple winged reentry system. While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better matched pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2129" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "13:36:43" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2129 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GIc0R20755 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GIbx420717 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p449.gnt.com [204.49.91.65]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA20909; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:37:48 -0500 Message-ID: <003101bfa7d2$c8142f40$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38F9FFAB.8DDE2D42@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:36:43 -0500 > It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the > earth. > When we get to interstellar travel a beamed energy craft that looks a > lot > like the general saucer shaped could be the ticket, or a > electro-static > fusion lander. > > For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable > craft. > Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach > 1. Chemical > rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking > craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and > places it into orbit. It also > handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod > uses simple > winged reentry system. > While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better > matched > pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. > Ben. I agree that from a strictly Earth oriented point of view that Horizontal Take Off and Landing (HTOL) is preferable to Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) and that multi stage may well be more practical that Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO). But this all assumes a large ground infrastructure of runways, launch facilities, and personnel. The Delta Clipper needed none of that. True, the DC-X was not able to lift out of Earth's gravity well, but it was simply a test bed for the full scale design, similar to the way Venture Star is proposed. (Only DC-X was meeting its design goals, Venture Star is NOT.) A full blown Delta Clipper could have two crew members and 10 tons of cargo and/or passengers to Low Earth Orbit or 2 crew members and 5 tons of cargo/passengers to Polar Orbit. This is not a great amount compared to the Shuttle, but its lack of need for ground facilities is the telling point. Coupled with airplane like operations (quick, no-fuss turnaround), even a first generation Delta Clipper would have sufficed as a landing craft for an interstellar mission. Of course, the worst part of this is that the full scale DC-Y prototype could have been flying by 1997 with Delta Clipper in full operation by 2000. We would ALREADY be seeing a 90% reduction in launch costs today... Lee From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["365" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:18" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 365 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbTx06719 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbS406710 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.e4.3bfdeb2 (4239) for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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 travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:18 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 1:38:21 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Of course, the worst part of this is that the full scale DC-Y prototype >could have been flying by 1997 with Delta Clipper in full operation by >2000. >We would ALREADY be seeing a 90% reduction in launch costs today... > >Lee Certainly a nightmae senerio from NASA's stand point. :\ Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["991" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "starship-design: Re: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 991 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbTr06714 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbR406708 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.14.284b23a (4239); Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14.284b23a.262b706c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cometcatch@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: No Subject Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:16 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 1:50:37 PM, Cometcatch writes: >Hello. Read some of your papers. Could you tell me who is Robert Bussard, >where he did his work, what years? >Thanks. >E-mail: Cometcatch@aol.com Hi, He was a physicist. He started his career in the 60's I think. Don't know where he worked, but a libraries "Who's Who" reference book should list it all. You can also get a list of all the stuff he's published. His most famous idea is called a "Bussard Ramscoop stardrive". The idea was that you could scoop up interstellar hydrogen in flight, fuse it for thrust, and accelerate. Effectively a star ship engine that you wouldn't need to carry any fuel for. The idea doesn't look like it would work, since there is so little interstellar hydrogen in our area, and the drag from the huge magnetic fields would slow you down faster then the fusion rockets could accelerate you, but it was a very interesting idea. Hope this helps. Glad you like the site! Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1550" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1550 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbXU06769 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbW406733 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.22.4878fcc (4239) for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.4878fcc.262b7071@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:21 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 12:56:00 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: >> >> > Well lets get the ball rolling... >> >> That is why I keep forwarding all those space access posts, If we don't >get >> started on the infrastructure, it will never happen. Low cost access >to >> space is the first step. >> >> BTW, you should look at Delta Clipper. They killed the best possibility >for >> a lander for an interstellar mission. Strong, robust, land anywhere and >> single stage to orbit.... Certainly killed the best chance for a low cost launcher in the current day. Which is very likely the reason NASA killed it. >> Lee > >It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the >earth.== It was designed for a grav like Earths? >For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable >craft. >Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach 1. Chemical >rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking >craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and >places it into orbit. It also >handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod uses simple >winged reentry system. >While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better >matched >pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower costs - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1294" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:08:03" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GL2cC01451 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GL2b401442 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA29660 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:02:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FA2BB3.D46A24A3@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <22.4878fcc.262b7071@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:08:03 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, > plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower costs > - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. > This is a simple design.. 1 segment does 1 job. Piloted craft, to carry Orbital pod,a 30 minute flight to provide a simple air launch. Because the launch is < the speed of sound a simple craft is needed. Orbital pod then has the advantage of better ISP for the rocket motors and being unmanned can follow a simple flight path with a simple autopilot, and not need the over head of manned life support. The capture stage provides the fine navigation control for space station docking. The higher ISP because this is beamed energy rocket counter acts the mass of the capture craft, and saves weight on the orbital pod for guidance and reentry controls. The assume that the fueled capture craft always stays in orbit, and I have manned space station in orbit,with beamed energy collectors. This is not 100% bootstapable at the moment, is the really big flaw. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1499" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "02:39:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1499 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3H6e8e13002 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3H6e7412996 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.16.29daf0d (4215); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16.29daf0d.262c0b90@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:39:12 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 4:02:48 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, >> plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower >costs >> - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. >> >This is a simple design.. 1 segment does 1 job. >Piloted craft, to carry Orbital pod,a 30 minute flight to provide >a simple air launch. Because the launch is < the speed of sound a >simple craft is needed. Orbital pod then has the advantage of better >ISP for the rocket motors and being unmanned can follow a simple >flight path with a simple autopilot, and not need the over head of >manned life support. The capture stage provides the fine navigation >control for space station docking. The higher ISP because this is >beamed energy rocket counter acts the mass of the capture craft, >and saves weight on the orbital pod for guidance and reentry controls. >The assume that the fueled capture craft always stays in orbit, >and I have manned space station in orbit,with beamed energy collectors. I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper or more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only the operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is more complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. >This is not 100% bootstapable at the moment, is the really big flaw. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1905" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "01:45:02" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1905 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3H7dWb27319 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3H7dU427306 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin47.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.47]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA00753 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:39:28 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FAC0FE.572B3FCA@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <16.29daf0d.262c0b90@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:45:02 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper or > more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only the > operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is more > complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. > I don't know, as I have not built it, nor have the skill to build it or a regular SSTO craft, to find out. Unless you have a craft that is about the size of small aircraft that runs say 3 times a day 7 days a week, what ever design SSTO or TSTO, payload prices will not drop. This is a neat paper on really cheap space access, and gives some facts on projected launch costs. With a projected cost of about $60/kg for basic space access costs (fuel,operating costs),the price jumps to $600/kg for insurance, launch and profit margin for 4 fights a week.(300kg payload). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml Fuel costs on the shuttle is about $90/kg, so where does the remaining $19910 goes?Even greater losses are with the larger designs. While this does prove your point, it is something I think there is a large room for improvement. Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Say $150/kg... and a payload of 300kg with a unmanned craft. Assuming a 40:1 ratio that is 12 ton craft regardless of being SSTO or TSTO. That is too small to deliver nuclear war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver stuff for Communications,but is the right size to build things in space, because it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. > > Kelly -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 17:36:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["594" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:26:14" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "20" "starship-design: books . . ." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 594 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I0SBj01467 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I0SA401461 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.243]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000418002803.EIJF9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:28:03 +0000 Message-ID: <38FBABA6.8192B94B@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: books . . . Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:26:14 -0400 For those wanting more about fusors: "Stellarator and Heliotron Devices", Masahiro Wakatani. Explains plasma physics for stellarators from the fundamental level, and examines the high-temperature plasma confinement devices known as heliotrons. 444 pages. Oxford. Pub. at $105 Cat. No. 599700 Price, $6.95, from Edward R. Hamilton Falls Village, CT 06031-5000 note 1: no, I haven't read it note 2: E. R. Hamilton is a cash-only mail order outfit, but prices are great, and there is a single, $3/order shipping charge. The catalog number above is Hamilton's. Happy reading, Curtis From VM Mon Apr 17 17:36:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2906" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:31:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2906 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I0WI102757 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I0WH402748 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.dd.33e5c0b (4206); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:31:10 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 2:40:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper >or >> more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only >the >> operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is >more >> complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. >> > >I don't know, as I have not built it, nor have the skill to build it >or a regular SSTO craft, to find out. Unless you have a craft that >is about the size of small aircraft that runs say 3 times a day 7 days >a week, what ever design SSTO or TSTO, payload prices will not drop. Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial to get 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get the customers and reasonably intrest rates. >This is a neat paper on really cheap space access, and gives some >facts on projected launch costs. With a projected cost of about $60/kg >for basic space access costs (fuel,operating costs),the price jumps to >$600/kg for insurance, launch and profit margin for 4 fights a >week.(300kg payload). > >http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml I'll have to check it out. >Fuel costs on the shuttle is about $90/kg, so where does the remaining >$19910 goes? It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle for launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop tank costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before you do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. $300,000,000 divided amoung 40,000 pounds of cargo is $7500 per pound already. Add in other expenses, or need to take longer to prep the shuttle for some reason, and you get up to or above$10 K per pound. >Even greater losses are with the larger designs. While this >does prove your point, it is something I think there is a large room for >improvement. Can't follow this? >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Say $150/kg... and a >payload >of 300kg with a unmanned craft. Assuming a 40:1 ratio that is 12 ton >craft >regardless of being SSTO or TSTO. That is too small to deliver nuclear >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver >stuff >for Communications,but is the right size to build things in space, >because >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts for on site assembly. Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1132" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "22:08:37" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1132 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I2AdO05506 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I2Ac405499 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.95]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000418021030.HQLE9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: <38FBC3A5.ADFEBD1@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:08:37 -0400 > That is too small to deliver nuclear > >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver > >stuff > >for Communications, Say, isn't the majority of commercial space business expected to be in launching/servicing comm sats? If your launch system can't handle this, you lose a lot of market . . . > but is the right size to build things in space, > >because > >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. > > Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its > very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts > for on site assembly. I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project more expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex design, and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. ;-) This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for modular assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so many chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost more. Anyone done that yet? > Kelly Curtis From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2337" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:54:23" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2337 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I2n3H16385 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I2mw416370 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA13873 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:48:44 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBCE5F.C63E01A1@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:54:23 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial to get > 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins > with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get the > customers and reasonably intrest rates. > I still think $150 per kg to LEO is a goal we need to set for the best price of orbital costs. > > It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle for > launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop tank > costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming > you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before you > do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. > Well that explains why nobody wants to improve the space program, 3,500+ people would be out of work and the drop tank people out of a job. > Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its > very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts > for on site assembly. > Nope ... inertia is the same. Because F=MA you can in theory move any object if that object moves very very slowly. A guy working in a space suit does face some risk of injury, but not as much as the movies and tv makes out. With pure O2 at 3 lbs pressure in a space suit a complete loss of air is not fatal providing the person can reach shelter with in two minutes ,from a rip or tear in the suit. I do admit many things taken for granted - turning a wrench, boiling water , having sex ; do change in space and that is the challenge of the environment. Things are more expensive in space ( ignoring the cost of getting there) because things have to be done by hand, something that the industrial revolution has caused people to forget. Guy S may take 8 hours to assemble a prefrabicated wall in space, guy E 10 minutes using power tools and assembly line fabrication. Why do I get the feeling that space access will be run by big companies who's goal is profit, like the Company towns for Coal mining? > Kelly Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1553" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "21:16:38" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1553 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I3BC022211 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I3B4422187 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA14876 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:10:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBD396.A71E4249@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38FBC3A5.ADFEBD1@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:16:38 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project more > expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex design, > and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. ;-) I think labor costs will be lower because you don't need a PHD to assemble a wall. SPACE ACCESS does show how STUPID some ideas of values are, because it shows the real cost of food,shelter, envorment ,greed that we all take for granted. > This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for modular > assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so many > chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost more. > Anyone done that yet? Modular assemblies always cost more, but they spread out the risk of failure. You put a dent in a wall panel ( stray meteor? ) you replace the panel. A pre fabricated room needs the whole room replaced. Bigger is not better, just more profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 years man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space craft. Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1488" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1488 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4MXY12761 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4MW412736 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c1.266c717 (4197) for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:21 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 9:11:53 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >> That is too small to deliver nuclear >> >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver >> >stuff >> >for Communications, > >Say, isn't the majority of commercial space business expected to be in >launching/servicing comm sats? If your launch system can't handle this, >you lose >a lot of market . . . True and another good reason for larger launchers. >> but is the right size to build things in space, >> >because >> >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. >> >> Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and >its >> very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small >parts >> for on site assembly. > >I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project >more >expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex >design, >and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. >;-) >This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for >modular >assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so >many >chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost >more. >Anyone done that yet? Except the transport headaches, building it in as few parts as possible is always vastly superior, safer, and cheaper! Course if you can't lift it in that form, your out of luck. >> Kelly > >Curtis Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2773" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "86" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2773 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4N8312874 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4N7412864 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.5b.4a271ec (4197); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5b.4a271ec.262d3cff@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:23 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial >to get >> 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins >> with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get >the >> customers and reasonably intrest rates. >> > > I still think $150 per kg to LEO is a goal we need to set for the best >price of orbital costs. Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge to the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because the general complexity and power levels are similar. I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing a LOT of surface to LEO flights. >> It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle >for >> launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop >tank >> costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming >> you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before >you >> do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. >> > > Well that explains why nobody wants to improve the space program, >3,500+ people would be out of work and the drop tank people out of a >job. At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew of under 100, and no mission control. >> Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and >its >> very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small >parts >> for on site assembly. >> > >Nope ... inertia is the same. Because F=MA you can in theory move any > >object if that object moves very very slowly. Inertion isn't the big issue in moving multi ton opjects. >== > >Things are more expensive in space ( ignoring the cost of getting there) >because things have to be done by hand, something that the industrial >revolution has caused people to forget. Guy S may take 8 hours to >assemble >a prefrabicated wall in space, guy E 10 minutes using power tools and >assembly line fabrication. Well if you do the assembly on the ground its not as big an issue >Why do I get the feeling that space access >will be run by big companies who's goal is profit, like the Company >towns >for Coal mining? Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs these systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin camp type facilities. >> Kelly >Ben. Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1881" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1881 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4NE312895 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4ND412888 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3e.293f51f (4197); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3e.293f51f.262d3d01@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:25 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 10:12:59 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >Curtis Manges wrote: > >> I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project >more >> expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex >design, >> and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this >world. ;-) > >I think labor costs will be lower because you don't need a PHD to >assemble >a wall. SPACE ACCESS does show how STUPID some ideas of values are, >because >it shows the real cost of food,shelter, envorment ,greed that we all >take for granted. > >> This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for >modular >> assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so >many >> chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would >cost more. >> Anyone done that yet? > >Modular assemblies always cost more, but they spread out the risk of >failure. >You put a dent in a wall panel ( stray meteor? ) you replace the panel. >A pre >fabricated room needs the whole room replaced. You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't want a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would leak like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. >Bigger is not better, >just more >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for you. >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 >years >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your wasteing resources and absolute value. >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space >craft. >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2084" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:04:19" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2084 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I5wr706970 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I5wm406951 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin58.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.58]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA22509 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:58:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBFAE3.D53366FF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3e.293f51f.262d3d01@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:04:19 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't want > a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would leak > like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! You must think everything comes from a FACTORY already assembled. HOW THE FUCK does the FACTORY make the stuff,if not from hundreds of parts. You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live in, why can't I have the same choice in space? Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. > > >Bigger is not better, > >just more > >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. > > If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for you. > > >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 > >years > >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? > > Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your > wasteing resources and absolute value. > Money is a measure of talent not value... How much money is a loving family or a good friend or a life worth. I don't make much money does that mean I have NO value in designing spacecraft? I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? > > >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space > >craft. > >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. It is a real pain that one has to fight the social/economic system to get launch costs down. Ben. PS I don't agree with the current social / economic system we live in, nothing personal with my sharp remarks. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1770" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:28:14" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "46" "starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1770 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I6MdJ12041 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I6Mc412033 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin58.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.58]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA23552 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FC007E.68AA6AE@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5b.4a271ec.262d3cff@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:28:14 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge to > the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because > the general complexity and power levels are similar. Can we safely say $150 kg for near term launch costs @ 1 ton payloads? I would like to design for interplantary craft. Until one has a design for that constructed and working one can't even guess on inter-stelar craft of any type. > > I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets > of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) > > Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing a LOT > of surface to LEO flights. > Beamed energy is still energy hungery. If I remember right it is 25 watts per ISP unit. Focus and heat is the limiting factors. Where does the energy come from? Solar, fusion, fisson power sources? > At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle > replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew of > under 100, and no mission control. > Funny a small plane can fly again with just a fill up with fuel. Why need space be different? > Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs these > systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin camp > type facilities. I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not the empire state building.(25 rooms). -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Apr 18 18:18:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3023" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:15:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3023 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J1FTK04291 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J1FS404276 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.9.460502d (9726) for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9.460502d.262e62a7@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:19 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 1:23:12 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >> Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge >to >> the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because >> the general complexity and power levels are similar. > >Can we safely say $150 kg for near term launch costs @ 1 ton payloads? No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want to launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to build and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below $100 a kilo. >== >> I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets >> of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) >> >> Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing >a LOT >> of surface to LEO flights. >> > Beamed energy is still energy hungery. If I remember right it is >25 watts per ISP unit. Focus and heat is the limiting factors. Where >does the energy come from? Solar, fusion, fisson power sources? If its beamed up its from the comercial power grid. 25 watts per isp is nonsence. ISP would vary wildly with the type of rocket and the reacti mass its using. >> At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle >> replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew >of >> under 100, and no mission control. >> > Funny a small plane can fly again with just a fill up with fuel. >Why need space be different? Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. Higher performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins so thick you can take such chances. Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend some time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich to tear down andrebuild and inspect. >> Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs >these >> systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin >camp >> type facilities. > >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not >the empire state building.(25 rooms). You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you could. Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the big ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. ===== >http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml Good artical! >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines about $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? From VM Tue Apr 18 18:18:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3326" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:15:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "103" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3326 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J1G5q04410 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J1G4404403 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.d6.284282d (9726); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:17 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 1:00:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't >want >> a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would >leak >> like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. >> > > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! To hold the air into a space ship!!! Are you nutz!!! NO ONE accepts a 40 foot yacht shiped to them in ten 4 foot peaces peaces to be bolted together in the water. NO one acepts an aircraft whos wings were to be duct taped together from 4 fot sections. Get real! > You must think everything comes from a FACTORY already assembled. > HOW THE FUCK does the FACTORY make the stuff,if not from hundreds of >parts. Because they ae building it in a factory. Where they have construction gigs, can crawl all over the thing to test it, have full assess to personell and any test device nessisary. None that is avalible in space or in the field. > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do a bad job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure suit in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. >> >> >Bigger is not better, >> >just more >> >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. >> >> If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for >you. >> >> >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 >> >years >> >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? >> >> Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your >> wasteing resources and absolute value. >> > Money is a measure of talent not value... No talent is one type of value. >How much money is >a loving family or a good friend or a life worth. Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. >I don't make much >money does that mean I have NO value in designing spacecraft? How much has anyone offered to pay you? >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the math. >> >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space >> >craft. >> >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. > >It is a real pain that one has to fight the social/economic system >to get launch costs down. You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. You figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system and develop a market to support low cost operations. >Ben. >PS I don't agree with the current social / economic system we live >in, nothing personal with my sharp remarks. Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 19 10:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2914" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "20:43:05" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "88" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2914 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J2bRl29663 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J2bP429626 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin51.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.51]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA06618 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:37:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FD1D39.1A7E78EE@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:43:05 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/18/00 1:00:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! > > To hold the air into a space ship!!! Are you nutz!!! NO ONE accepts a 40 > foot yacht shiped to them in ten 4 foot peaces peaces to be bolted together > in the water. NO one acepts an aircraft whos wings were to be duct taped > together from 4 fot sections. > > Get real! Get a sense of humor.... But then again was not duct tape used to fix the air filters for apollo 13? > > Because they ae building it in a factory. Where they have construction gigs, > can crawl all over the thing to test it, have full assess to personell and > any test device nessisary. None that is avalible in space or in the field. > > > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live > > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? > > Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do a bad > job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure suit > in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. > Rockets blow up... a space habitat does not... Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume construction, and that type of construction has to be done some time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man could do it. > > > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and > >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. > > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. > > No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. Picky... > > Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. > Money can't buy love. > >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money > >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? > > Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the math. Hard to sell things with M$'s marketing clout telling you what to buy. > > You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. You > figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system and > develop a market to support low cost operations. > The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. The system as I see it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a permit to test or fly it. > Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. Don't > bite the hand that feeds you. > What if I don't like what the hand is feeding me? This is cat food... grin -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Wed Apr 19 10:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2583" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:41:28" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2583 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J3Zr715994 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J3Zp415985 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin51.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.51]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09630 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:35:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FD2AE8.EF4AE41E@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9.460502d.262e62a7@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:41:28 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want to > launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably > could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to build > and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below > $100 a kilo. Daily for 500 kg craft: 5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch 1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches > 25 watts per isp is nonsence. ISP would vary wildly with the type of rocket > and the reacti mass its using. This a ball park figure for 100% efficient reaction engine from a energy stand point. > > Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. Higher > performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex > systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins so thick > you can take such chances. > > Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend some > time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich to > tear down andrebuild and inspect. I don't say there will be no down time, but that is why you have several aircraft ready for flight. > > >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not > >the empire state building.(25 rooms). > > You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you could. I just need to find 74 more people with the same interest. The bigger platform is cheaper makes no sense to me. > Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the big > ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. This would about 2x the size of apartment building I liven, room for gardens and pets and play areas. > >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) > >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. > > Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines > about > $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? That is fuel and base costs to place 1 kg in orbit. With about a 40:1 ratio for just fuel $11.20 . O2 is $.8 and $.20 for kerosene 1980 for 1 kg. http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/props/loxosene.htm I have no idea the price of CH4 so I am guessing here it is the same. liquid hydrogen is $3.80 for 1980 prices. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Wed Apr 19 15:10:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2834" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "18:02:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "87" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2834 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JM2TW02955 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JM2S402942 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.d0.4ab2ee9 (3706) for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:19 EDT >> > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live >> > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? >> >> Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do >a bad >> job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure >suit >> in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. >> > > Rockets blow up... a space habitat does not... Its under 14.7 psi. Get a fracture and it will explode. > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man > could do it. Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. Easier to prefab it in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. If you want something office building sized you could inflate a structure that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. >> > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and >> >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. >> > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. >> >> No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. > > Picky... > >> >> Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. >> > Money can't buy love. Buy a dog. ;) Loved ones need money to support. >> >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money >> >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? >> >> Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the >math. > > Hard to sell things with M$'s marketing clout telling you what to buy. The Linux or web groups might debate that. >> You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. >You >> figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system >and >> develop a market to support low cost operations. >> > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. The system as >I see >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a >permit >to test or fly it. Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is working to adapt their rules for comercial space plane dev now. >> Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. > Don't >> bite the hand that feeds you. >> > >What if I don't like what the hand is feeding me? This is cat food... You want to go into space. That take resources. You won't get them (past hobbiestlevels) unless you can convice folks you can pay them back - probably with a good amount of interest. If you can't pay your way, or interest enough contrabutions for fun or advertizing, you can't convince folks your worth the effort. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 19 15:10:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2826" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "18:02:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2826 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JM3GT03279 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JM3F403266 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.cb.47acde9 (3706); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:23 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 10:36:29 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want >to >> launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably >> could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to >build >> and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below >> $100 a kilo. > >Daily for 500 kg craft: > >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't carry anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist hop and come back down. >> Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. >Higher >> performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex >> systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins >so thick >> you can take such chances. >> >> Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend >some >> time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich >to >> tear down andrebuild and inspect. > > I don't say there will be no down time, but that is why you have >several >aircraft ready for flight. > >> >> >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not >> >the empire state building.(25 rooms). >> >> You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you >could. > > I just need to find 74 more people with the same interest. >The bigger platform is cheaper makes no sense to me. The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far more space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week or two? >> Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the >big >> ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. > >This would about 2x the size of apartment building I liven, >room for gardens and pets and play areas. > >> >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg >) >> >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. >> >> Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines >> about >> $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? > >That is fuel and base costs to place 1 kg in orbit. >With about a 40:1 ratio for just fuel $11.20 >. >O2 is $.8 and $.20 for kerosene 1980 for 1 kg. >http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/props/loxosene.htm > >I have no idea the price of CH4 so I am guessing here it is the same. >liquid hydrogen is $3.80 for 1980 prices. Liquid hydrogen was about $1 a pound, CH4 is a lot cheaper since it has more comercial use. > >Ben. From VM Wed Apr 19 16:18:01 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1122" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "17:11:47" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1122 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JN6Ed09796 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JN6C409783 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21266 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:06:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FE3D33.A00C7820@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:11:47 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch > >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches > > 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't carry > anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist hop > and come back down. > I am sure 5 people a day would love to get into space for a $10,000 if it was based on the cost of fuel not the price of custom designer rockets,for every launch. > > The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far more > space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet > operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week or two? > A medium plane has say 75 passengers as a guess. The same size space/plane would carry 6 people and a pilot. A 747 sized plane 25 people? That is as big payloads will be for space,for a reasonable price $150/kg. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9433" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "21:40:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "220" "starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9433 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1feh11371 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1fd411365 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.9f.435d32f (3937) for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 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: How to build a station. Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:40:53 EDT Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. How would you get a small craft into space? Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is doable, so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. Slight problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at 400 mph, you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and ship will look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make the hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. But the exotic material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. (Not to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace engineers would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger and you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off with flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at those speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from a SR-71 or X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. Find a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. Reentry? Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp bottom stuff. If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something like it. What about a space station? Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You need more then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible at that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. To make it simple build and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and assembly. REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it out, pump it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good amount of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal mass. Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. Air processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need to keep brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get most of your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered brown water out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude control thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have in a life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside of the docking module? How much would all this cost? Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled teams can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms have estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 billion dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. Launch costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop up costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another big cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability to make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you just want some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per person. Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. At least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats $1-3 million dollars worth of fuel. So you built your launcher for a extreamly cheap cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. You MIGHT be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can keep that up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually pay your staffs. Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial bargins for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 a pound real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, and its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to put in all this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm might be willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less scroungee. =================== Subject: urls > > >Adjusting the Shroud to act as a Ramjet, and mounting the "Ejectors" as >a combustion ring inside might work. Though, again, reentry becomes a bit >of a problem. But the shape would give "body-side" compression for the >jet and allow a vertical take off and landing also. >(BTW, if you folks haven't checked out this site yet, you might want to >take a look: >http://www.ptw.com/~oglenn/trimode/3m-arla.htm >Check out the "Back-Page" section, he's done and quoted some research through >the old NACA records on Ramjets and fuel) Two gross estimating methods of thrust for ramjet were found. The first is 20 lbf/sq in combustion chamber cross section. The second is 90 lbf/sq in inlet area (ref Jaumotte). The first is probably conservative for a lean burning engine and the second is more of a maximum. For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, though theory says they can get 2,400 seconds. For this reason the ramjet gets 4-5 times as much thrust per pound of fuel. For amateur rocketeers the cost of the fuel is small but this higher Isp means that the stage can be 8-10 times smaller. The traditional jet engine fuel is kerosene. Other fuels that have been used are diesel, alcohol, propane, butane, and hydrogen. Each fuel has it's benefits and drawbacks. For example, alcohol has a lower energy density but, because of this, the engine will run a little cooler. Ramjets can operate on a wide range of fuels including solid plastics, liquid hydrocarbons, and hydrogen. The solid fueled ramjets were not researched for this study. The German Lippisch P13a experimental fighter used coal as its fuel. Each fuel has certain characteristics that may be preferable, depending on the particular design of the ramjet. Kerosene is the traditional ramjet fuel. It is widely available for about $0.45/lb in bulk and is much safer than gasoline. Diesel fuel is very similar to kerosene. Gasoline is slightly less dense than kerosene and has about the same density Isp. It is easier to ignite but can be very explosive. Alcohol has a lower density Isp and a lower flame temperature. For this reason it would be useful if lowering the flame temperature were needed. Hydrogen provides almost twice the Isp of kerosene but is about a fourth as dense. Because of this the fuel tank will be about twice as large for hydrogen as for kerosene but the fuel will weigh less. The flame temperature for stoichiometric hydrogen operation will be much higher than for kerosene and so will cause problems with combustion chamber and nozzle design. Hydrogen is considered by some, but not all, to be essential above Mach 7. Fuel/Air Mixture Ratio Ramjets operate most efficiently with a stoichiometric fuel/air ratio (about 1/17) but for a variety of reasons have been operated otherwise. To limit velocity, pressures, and temperatures they are often operated very lean. They can also be operated very rich, especially for very high velocity operations. An excess of fuel allows for full combustion of the available air plus some cooling and increased mass flow. This has the benefit of reducing thermal stresses in the hot section of the engine but requires more fuel. This cooling can also be achieved by water or alcohol injection as is done in the Mig 25 and the older B-52s. When hydrocarbon fuels, such as kerosene, are used above about Mach 5 the exhaust temperature is high enough to begin dissociating some of the exhaust products. While this reduces the Isp it does not become a major factor until about Mach 7. Because the CO2 dissociates easier than the H2O the net effect of operating very fuel rich at high speeds is that the ramjet begins to act like the fuel is hydrogen with some excess carbon thrown in. An interesting effect is that the very hot carbon particles would probably burn after they exit the exhaust nozzle and cause a comet-like tail of flame behind the vehicle. I especialy like the amature ramjet projects. Literally garage built from scrap. (A coffe can for the flame holder??!) http://www.ptw.com/~oglenn/trimode/rj-const.htm http://home3.inet.tele.dk/kennethm/index.htm http://pfranc.com/projects/turbine/top.htm http://www.webcreations.com/ptm/me2.htm Scott Lowther home ejector ramjet maker. From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1275" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "21:41:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1275 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1gL911533 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1gJ411526 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3a.405562e (3937); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.405562e.262fba39@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:41:13 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 6:06:54 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch >> >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches >> >> 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't >carry >> anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist >hop >> and come back down. >> > I am sure 5 people a day would love to get into space >for a $10,000 if it was based on the cost of fuel not >the price of custom designer rockets,for every launch. True, if you could do it. One wit commented: "How much would your ticket to England cost it 747's only flew twice a year, and Boeing only sold 4 after developing them?" >> The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far >more >> space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet >> operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week >or two? >> > >A medium plane has say 75 passengers as a guess. The same size >space/plane >would carry 6 people and a pilot. A 747 sized plane 25 people? That is >as big payloads will be for space,for a reasonable price $150/kg. Ah a current large launcher carries 10-20 tons of payload. Thats 40-80people? From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1711" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "20:42:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1711 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1lmW12782 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1lk412777 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p453.gnt.com [204.49.91.69]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA22810; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:47:33 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:42:53 -0500 > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man > > could do it. Yep, considering it right now.... > > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. Nope, you can prefab small too. > Easier to prefab it > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. > > If you want something office building sized you could inflate > a structure > that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid into position and hollow it out. > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. > The system as > >I see > >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop > >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a > >permit > >to test or fly it. > > Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is > working to adapt > their rules for comercial space plane dev now. They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7244" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "23:12:02" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "313" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7244 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K3Ea407719 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K3EY407712 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.135]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000420031424.TIME9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:14:24 +0000 Message-ID: <38FE7582.4040405@worldnet.att.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; N; Win98; en-US; m14) Netscape6/6.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070707040605070808040908" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:12:02 -0400 --------------070707040605070808040908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0=A0 L. Parker wrote: > = > > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man= > > > could do it. > = > Yep, considering it right now.... > = > > > > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > = > Nope, you can prefab small too. > = > > Easier to prefab it > > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. > = > Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch co= sts > art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. > Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the probl= em. > We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once = you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory = for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid = iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to = indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could = even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest = problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. = However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that = may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary = ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for = plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out = there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. = I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you = could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)=A0 And, of course you= = could spin a cylinder . . . > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > > > = > > If you want something office building sized you could inflate > = > > a structure > = > > that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. > = > = > = > If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient astero= id > = > into position and hollow it out. Throw an engine on it and you've got another ship. > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. > = > > The system as > = > > >I see > = > > >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop > = > > >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a= > = > > >permit > = > > >to test or fly it. > = > > > = > > Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is > = > > working to adapt > = > > their rules for comercial space plane dev now. > = > = > = > They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this ve= ry > = > moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to Americ= an > = > air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somew= here > = > else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that ent= ities > = > besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. > = > = > = > = > = --------------070707040605070808040908 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    L. Parker wrote:
> >  Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume
> >  construction, and that type of construction has to be done some
> >  time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man
> >  could do it.

Yep, considering it right now....

>
> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time.

Nope, you can prefab small too.

> Easier to prefab it
> in major parts, and launch and dock the parts.  Far easier.

Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs
art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables.
Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem.
We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground.

Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such.
Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead.
Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel.
All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)  And, of course you could spin a cylinder . . .










>

> If you want something office building sized you could inflate

> a structure

> that size, or larger and asemble it in it.  Harder though.



If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid

into position and hollow it out.

Throw an engine on it and you've got another ship.










> >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there.

> The system as

> >I see

> >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop

> >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a

> >permit

> >to test or fly it.

>

> Sure you can.  Several groups are doing so now.  FAA is

> working to adapt

> their rules for comercial space plane dev now.



They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very

moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American

air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere

else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities

besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil.

--------------070707040605070808040908-- From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1848" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "00:18:53" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1848 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K6DJZ21069 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K6DH421064 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA12126 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:13:05 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FEA14D.D572E3BF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$0401a8c0@broadsword> <38FE7582.4040405@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:18:53 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. > Once you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated > factory for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed > asteroid iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural > section to indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. > You could even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. > Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest > problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. > However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that > may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. I would think that anything that melts has to have the requirement of low vapor pressure since you don't want the melted section being jet propelled across the room. In zero G a lot of things that don't mix together on earth could be made to mix in space. > Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary > ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. > All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for > plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out > there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being > food. I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the > hell, you could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-) And, of > course you could spin a cylinder . . . With genetic engineering, could one make your beanstalks space hardy ( bio-plastic outer skin ) and grow a dome for habit on the moon? -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6467" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "01:51:15" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "160" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6467 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K7jWN24234 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K7jU424048 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA16293 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:45:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FEB6F3.2235364F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:51:15 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. > > How would you get a small craft into space? > > Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade > ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with > Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work > getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is > doable, > so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. A ram jet needs a rail launch,to get up to speed. That saves a few kg of fuel. > The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. Slight > problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at 400 mph, > you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and ship will > look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make the > hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. But the exotic > material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. > (Not > to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace > engineers > would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger and > you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off with > flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. Don't forget heat pipes,or open vapor cooling. > > How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at those > speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from a SR-71 > or > X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. > Find > a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. > Reentry? > Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp bottom > stuff. A lifting body is harder to design, but may not have any advantages anymore over the simple design with better materials. > If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something like > it. > > What about a space station? > Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You need > more > then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible at > that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton space-craft. To make it simple > build > and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and > assembly. > REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. > yea for prefab. > > For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it out, > pump > it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good > amount > of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal > mass. A side trip to the moon for concrete? way to heavy for lift from the earth. > Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. Air > processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need to > keep > brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get most > of > your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered brown > water > out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude > control > thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. > > Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have in a > life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. > Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside of > the > docking module? Solar panels are too expensive I guess. A small solar generator may be better. here the limiting factor is not weight but bulk. > > How much would all this cost? > Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled > teams > can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms have > estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 billion > dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. Launch > costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop up > costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another > big > cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability to > make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you just want > some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. > $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). > Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per > person. > Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? > > For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. At > least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats $1-3 > million dollars worth of fuel. @ $.25 /lb fuel x 40:1 x 2,000 x 540 = 10.8 million So you built your launcher for a extremely > cheap > cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. You MIGHT > be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can keep that > up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually pay > your staffs. > > Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial bargins > for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 a pound > real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, and > its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to put in > all > this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm might > be > willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less > scroungee. Note with $.25/lb fuel cost and 40:1 ratio that is $10 lb or 20k per ton. > > For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically > get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, >. That will drop the mass ratio down abit. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["984" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "10:08:45" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 984 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KG2xP12243 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KG2w412236 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22778 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:02:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FF2B8D.CAF421D5@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:08:45 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. > > How would you get a small craft into space? > > Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade > ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with > Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work > getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is > doable, > so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, and off you go. From VM Thu Apr 20 10:40:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1147" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "13:24:36" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1147 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHWjb29138 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHWiR29125 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KHVI428245 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTB0027WSD59D@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:24:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FF3D54.2207BAEF@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> <38FF2B8D.CAF421D5@jetnet.ab.ca> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Ben Franchuk Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:24:36 -0400 Ben Franchuk wrote: > The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet > must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out > and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe > from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. > Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about > ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you > get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, > and off you go. Well, for the rocket/ramjet, there's a french missile that does just what you want, and it's cheap(not like a million-dollar-a-piece-tomahawk 8) Basically, it just stuffs a monergol in the ramjet, and when the monergol is all used, it gets rapidly into ramjet mode... And, couldn't you just use the same part for ramjet&space rocket? Like when you reenter rocket mode, just use claps to block the air entrance, and then injects Fuel&O2 instead of just putting Fuel? Just a thought -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 10:47:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1252" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "10:42:51" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1252 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHguc03847 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KHgt403837 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante17.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante17.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.67]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id KAA20524 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:53 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante17.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id KAA29400 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <38FF3D54.2207BAEF@videotron.ca> 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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT) What's a monergol? Nels On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, pk wrote: > Ben Franchuk wrote: > > The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet > > must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out > > and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe > > from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. > > Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about > > ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you > > get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, > > and off you go. > Well, for the rocket/ramjet, there's a french missile that does just > what you want, and it's cheap(not like a million-dollar-a-piece-tomahawk > 8) > Basically, it just stuffs a monergol in the ramjet, and when the > monergol is all used, it gets rapidly into ramjet mode... > And, couldn't you just use the same part for ramjet&space rocket? Like > when you reenter rocket mode, just use claps to block the air entrance, > and then injects Fuel&O2 instead of just putting Fuel? > > Just a thought > -- > AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at > crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... > From VM Thu Apr 20 11:24:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["374" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "14:04:21" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "9" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 374 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KILDD26911 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KILCF26899 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KIK1426281 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTB006CJU7F05@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:04:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FF46A5.2A75F1AE@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" Cc: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:04:21 -0400 N. Lindberg wrote: > > What's a monergol? Well, i don't know if the word exists in English, but in French, it's a propellant that burn by itself(no need for an external source of O2, etc)... Hydrazine would be an example, i think... -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["717" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "17:25:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 717 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMQbJ05903 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMQZ405896 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA08091; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:26:21 -0500 Message-ID: <002401bfab17$5f0e3f70$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38FF46A5.2A75F1AE@videotron.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'pk'" , "'N. Lindberg'" Cc: "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:25:00 -0500 > N. Lindberg wrote: > > > > What's a monergol? > Well, i don't know if the word exists in English, but in > French, it's a > propellant that burn by itself(no need for an external source of O2, > etc)... Hydrazine would be an example, i think... > -- Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT an example. All monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, on the other hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say explosives), I would advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to handle. The Federal government doesn't even allow transport of the components within fifty miles of each other. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["72" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "17:20:12" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 72 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMQP905851 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMQO405844 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA08076; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:26:19 -0500 Message-ID: <002301bfab17$5db20ad0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:20:12 -0500 > > What's a monergol? > Nels > Maybe he means monopropellant? Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2684" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "18:48:14" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2684 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMmSP18027 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMmR418020 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.97.458c799 (3315); Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97.458c799.2630e32e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:14 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume >> > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some >> > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man >> > could do it. > >Yep, considering it right now.... > >> >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > >Nope, you can prefab small too. Can doesn't mean its a good idea. >> Easier to prefab it >> in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. > >Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs >art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. >Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. >We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the launcher and save some serious bucks. >> If you want something office building sized you could inflate >> a structure >> that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. > >If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid >into position and hollow it out. Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. >> >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. >> The system as >> >I see >> >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop >> >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a >> >permit >> >to test or fly it. >> >> Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is >> working to adapt >> their rules for comercial space plane dev now. > >They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very >moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American >air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere >else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities >besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. I though congress changed that law last year? Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2790" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "18:48:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2790 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMmT818039 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMmS418028 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c1.2793c9a (3315) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3KMmT418030 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: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:17 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 10:15:37 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >   L. Parker wrote: >> >> > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume >> > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some >> > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man >> > > could do it. >> >> Yep, considering it right now.... >> >> > >> > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. >> >> Nope, you can prefab small too. >> >> > Easier to prefab it >> > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. >> >> Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch >costs >> art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. >> Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. >> We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. > >Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once > >you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory > >for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid >iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to >indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could >even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. >Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest >problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. >However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that > >may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. >Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary >ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. >All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for >plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out > >there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. > >I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you > >could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)  And, of course you > >could spin a cylinder . . . So before you get a few tons of Ibeams and sheet metal, you first need to orbit and bild a full mining manufacturing, machining, etc factory? All to build your small space station. So how do you build the mining etc space statin? How do you outfit it? Where do you build and operate its support ships? After all this was all started by the questin how to build a 765 person station and you guys first responce is "launch Pitsburg?!" And in case you didn't notice. That mill can't make the bulk of the station and its fittings. And of course if fanomonaly more expensive - which will help to convince everyone the space is to expensive to be at all usefull. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1100" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:58:42" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1100 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L102v11975 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L101411903 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTC00D92DDX5J@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:58:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FFA7C2.4EA89C6@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <002401bfab17$5f0e3f70$0401a8c0@broadsword> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'starship design'" Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:58:42 -0400 L. Parker wrote: > Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT an example. All > monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and > therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, on the other > hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say explosives), I would > advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to handle. The Federal > government doesn't even allow transport of the components within fifty miles > of each other. Alright... i didn't say that it was to be used in a XYZjet as a propellant; i said that a french missile is using solid rocket fuel to accelerate itself until it's fast enough to run in scramjet mode... Basically, it fills the scramjet with solid fuel, and when the fuel is all used up, claps open to let air get through, and scramjet mode starts... i don't know the name of the missile, but it must be from Matra, since every French missile come from them(or almost)... -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3482" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:27:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "83" "RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3482 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1Tks20871 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1Tj420864 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA05176; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <002901bfab30$fb0916c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <97.458c799.2630e32e@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:27:16 -0500 In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > > > >Nope, you can prefab small too. > > Can doesn't mean its a good idea. > Huh? Why not? Or should I point out that you have your economies of scale reversed? It is easier, cheaper and more profitable to mass produce a small object than a large one. Who ever heard of mass producing the Titanic? > Chose the best system for the project not the project to > promote your agenda. > Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, > smelt, and > manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less > launch mass > then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in > orbit? If the > answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to > jail, do not collect > $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the > material from > earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective > and safe. Most > you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the > launcher and > save some serious bucks. Whose promoting an agenda? Seriously, though; you might get away with building interplanetary probes in pieces and assembling them in orbit, but as long as it is done that way you are promoting large heavy lift, expensive to launch boosters. On the other hand a permanent manufacturing presence in orbit would require LOTS of small, efficient, cheap launches to maintain. Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? Not me. I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be manufactured BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is the equivalent of Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. > Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. Some are, some aren't. Depends on what they are made of. Some are thought to be rubble piles, some are thought to be solid. For mining purposes the rubble pile actually works better. The slag form the smelting operation can then be fused together to make large structures. The University of Minnesota has a good class on this. > > I though congress changed that law last year? The law has nothing to do with Congress, it is the FAA that has to change it. I could be wrong, but I don't think they have actually done so yet. It was one of the major reasons Kistler Aerospace took there project to Australia and it did have some influence on SeaLaunch as well. > > Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. Lots and lots of folks are working on space planes! Mostly they are after the X-Prize. Some actually intend to make money at this. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1312" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:32:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1312 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1YDI22004 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1YB421996 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA05942; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:34:06 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01bfab31$9978ef10$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38FFA7C2.4EA89C6@videotron.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'pk'" Cc: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:32:26 -0500 > From: pk [mailto:thida@videotron.ca] > L. Parker wrote: > > Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT > an example. All > > monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and > > therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, > on the other > > hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say > explosives), I would > > advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to > handle. The Federal > > government doesn't even allow transport of the components > within fifty miles > > of each other. > Alright... i didn't say that it was to be used in a XYZjet as a > propellant; i said that a french missile is using solid rocket fuel to > accelerate itself until it's fast enough to run in scramjet mode... > Basically, it fills the scramjet with solid fuel, and when the fuel is > all used up, claps open to let air get through, and scramjet mode > starts... > i don't know the name of the missile, but it must be from Matra, since > every French missile come from them(or almost)... Never heard of it, but it sounds like a neat trick. I suppose that would solve the problem of getting a scramjet up to speed. Most current missiles (as opposed to rockets) use monopropellants. Typically a metal based polymer of some sort. Aluminum works real well. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 18:57:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7443" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "21:49:54" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "233" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7443 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1o8u26333 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1o7426324 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.17.47e4e60 (8977) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:54 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. >> >> How would you get a small craft into space? >> >> Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade >> ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with >> Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of >work >> getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac >is >> doable, >> so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. > >A ram jet needs a rail launch,to get up to speed. >That saves a few kg of fuel. Ejector ramjets can run from a standing start. >> The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. >Slight >> problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at >400 mph, >> you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and >ship will >> look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make >the >> hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. > >How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes >hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. Not really since its harder to test and you want make lift drag for highest sppeds in rentry. > But the exotic >> material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. >> (Not >> to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace >> engineers >> would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger >and >> you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off >with >> flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. > >Don't forget heat pipes,or open vapor cooling. Lots of stuff, even semirecyled life support is comercial area. >> How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at >those >> speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from >a SR-71 >> or >> X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. >> Find >> a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. >> Reentry? >> Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp >bottom >> stuff. > >A lifting body is harder to design, but may not have any advantages >anymore over the simple design with better materials. Lifting body isn't very high lift, nor very easy to get high drag on rentry. Also they fly teribly! >> If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something >like >> it. >> >> What about a space station? >> Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You >need >> more >> then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible >at >> that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. > >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton >space-craft. Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? > To make it simple >> build >> and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and >> assembly. >> REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. >> > >yea for prefab. Yeah and since you don't want to ship up a full constructin crew, so you'ld want to prefab as much as possible. >> For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it >out, >> pump >> it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good >> amount >> of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal >> mass. > >A side trip to the moon for concrete? way to heavy for lift from the >earth. Cheaper to ship it up from earth then to ship it back from the moon. >> Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. > Air >> processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need >to >> keep >> brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get >most >> of >> your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered >brown >> water >> out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude >> control >> thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. >> >> Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have >in a >> life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. >> Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside >of >> the >> docking module? > >Solar panels are too expensive I guess. A small solar generator may be >better. >here the limiting factor is not weight but bulk. Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more relyable. >> How much would all this cost? >> Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled >> teams >> can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms >have >> estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 >billion >> dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. >Launch >> costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop >up >> costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another >> big >> cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability >to >> make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you >just want >> some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. >> $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). >> Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per >> person. >> Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? >> >> For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. > At >> least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats >$1-3 >> million dollars worth of fuel. > > @ $.25 /lb fuel x 40:1 x 2,000 x 540 = 10.8 million Why do you assume 40 to 1? The ratio varies a lot depending on the design and engine systems. > So you built your launcher for a extremely >> cheap >> cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. >You MIGHT >> be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can >keep that >> up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually >pay >> your staffs. >> >> Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial >bargins >> for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 >a pound >> real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, >and >> its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to >put in >> all >> this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm >might >> be >> willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less >> scroungee. > >Note with $.25/lb fuel cost and 40:1 ratio that is $10 lb or >20k per ton. > >> >> For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically >> get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, >>. > >That will drop the mass ratio down abit. A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more dence, it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 18:57:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "21:49:56" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1576 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1o8M26328 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1o6426322 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.37.41713e0 (8977) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37.41713e0.26310dc4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:56 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 11:12:26 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. >> >> How would you get a small craft into space? >> >> Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade >> ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with >> Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of >work >> getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac >is >> doable, >> so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. > >The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet >must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out >and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe >from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. >Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about >ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you >get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, >and off you go. The ram jets can be modified to also act as rockets, so they don't need to be dead weight. Since they can save almost half the take-off weight, they do give a dramatic edge. Again, I think the law was changed so launchers can land in the US. But if not, and you can make something flyable after rentry, land in Mexico for lunch them hop hom. ;) Space Access' TSTO uses Ejector ramjets for the mother craft and rockets for the secound stage after the mother craft exits the air. Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1220" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:55:04" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1220 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L2nRT12899 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L2nN412890 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA24750 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:49:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FFC307.AB506CFD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:55:04 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, > >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton > >space-craft. > > Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? There is about a 20:1 mass ratio from the rocket equation for a ISP of 350. ( lox/ kerosene or lox/ch4 ). If you assume the mass of the craft empty is the same of the payload, that becomes a 40:1 ratio. > > Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more > relyable. They have been claiming cheap solar panels, as long as the have been claiming cheap access into space. > A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air > breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more dence, > it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. I just think in the near future +25 years the price of oil/gas will skyrocket and CH4 will be cheaper than synthetic Kerosene. > Kelly -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6151" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "23:18:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "149" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L3In220300 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L3Im420294 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c4.2cd6c70 (4241) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:18:38 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: >> >> In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. >> > >> >Nope, you can prefab small too. >> >> Can doesn't mean its a good idea. >> > >Huh? Why not? Or should I point out that you have your economies of scale >reversed? It is easier, cheaper and more profitable to mass produce a small >object than a large one. Who ever heard of mass producing the Titanic? Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the feild. Prefabing little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means lots more seams to leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of things in the station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin is a bit dificult. >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to >> promote your agenda. >> Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, >> smelt, and >> manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less >> launch mass >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in >> orbit? If the >> answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to >> jail, do not collect >> $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the >> material from >> earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective >> and safe. Most >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the >> launcher and >> save some serious bucks. > >Whose promoting an agenda? > >Seriously, though; you might get away with building interplanetary probes >in >pieces and assembling them in orbit, but as long as it is done that way >you >are promoting large heavy lift, expensive to launch boosters. On the other >hand a permanent manufacturing presence in orbit would require LOTS of >small, efficient, cheap launches to maintain. No because the infastructure to build the probes and early stations is much larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of the cost of a good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its facilities and such. So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up far far less. In some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. With DC-x they found if you launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep most of the same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae a pretty low in comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the craft are divided over the total number of flights. >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few hundred tons, >hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. Add up the launch >cost >of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every piece is lifted to orbit from Earth >on Titans and Arianes. What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is >that? If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift costs could be cut even another factor of ten or 100. Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 tons of steel. >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay lets spend ten >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and >then >go home and quit? Not me. > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds of ships out >to >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital installations, the moon >and >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, inhabited stations >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know >how. Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, you want a earth side market for your space based industry. Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be manufactured >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is the equivalent >of >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could easily dwarf anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any manufacturing facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or Jamaca?) But they would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch infastructure to drool for, as well as residence facilities for research and consructin platforms to house their staffs on. >> Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. > >Some are, some aren't. Depends on what they are made of. Some are thought >to >be rubble piles, some are thought to be solid. For mining purposes the >rubble pile actually works better. The slag form the smelting operation >can >then be fused together to make large structures. The University of Minnesota >has a good class on this. > >> >> I though congress changed that law last year? > >The law has nothing to do with Congress, it is the FAA that has to change >it. I could be wrong, but I don't think they have actually done so yet. >It >was one of the major reasons Kistler Aerospace took there project to >Australia and it did have some influence on SeaLaunch as well. Congress has to change the law and when they found Kistler was being forced off shore they did (I'm pretty sure). >> Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. > >Lots and lots of folks are working on space planes! Mostly they are after >the X-Prize. Some actually intend to make money at this. Space access is the most interesting. ;) >Lee Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2107" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "23:51:51" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2107 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L3q3L28114 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L3q2428106 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.db.319fa7f (3700) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:51:51 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 9:50:04 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, >> >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton >> >space-craft. >> >> Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? > > There is about a 20:1 mass ratio from the rocket equation >for a ISP of 350. ( lox/ kerosene or lox/ch4 ). If you assume >the mass of the craft empty is the same of the payload, that >becomes a 40:1 ratio. That doesn't sound right, I remember a paper about LoX/Kero SSTO I I was pretty sure it didn't need that kind of mass ratio? Wait a minute I worked that out for a chapter draft, I got 17.3 to 1 for a Kero/LOx SSTO And with a airbreather combined cycle it came out to 5.8 to 1. I was assuming 1/4th of dry weight was cargo. Cost of fuel per pound of cargo was $7.3 and $2.7. Anyway since we were refuring to combined cycle birds I couldn't figure out 40 to 1. >> Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more >> relyable. > >They have been claiming cheap solar panels, as long as the have >been claiming cheap access into space. The term cheap takes on stange meanings in the space busness. ;) >> A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air >> breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more >dence, >> it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. > > I just think in the near future +25 years the price of oil/gas will >skyrocket and CH4 will be cheaper than synthetic Kerosene. Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil drifting around near earth space. So if you can cut the launch costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > >> Kelly Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4770" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "16:16:29" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "105" "starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4770 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LEH1h12358 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LEGx412338 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA25393 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:16:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211416.QAA25393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:16:29 +0200 (MET DST) Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:22:51 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: [...] > > >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote > >> your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. > >> You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most > >> of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass > >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? > >> If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, > >> go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical > >> and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial > >> projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most > >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise > >> the launcher and save some serious bucks. > > > >Whose promoting an agenda? > > [...] > >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few > >hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. > >Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every > >piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. > >What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? > > If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. > Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total > lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year > of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). [...] > Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds > of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper > in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill > to make 40 tons of steel. > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? > >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man > >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? > >Not me. > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations > >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. > >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, > you want a earth side market for your space based industry. > Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. > Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. > If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. > Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space operations - not for sustaining Earth people, but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. > [...] > > Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > drifting around near earth space. > So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > So if you can cut the launch > costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3873" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "11:23:02" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3873 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFOrh04355 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFOq404347 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.2]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000421152446.IXSN1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:24:46 +0000 Message-ID: <39007256.5C833401@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004211416.QAA25393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:23:02 -0400 > > > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, and who has rights to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty _until_ someone up there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; then the real fun begins. It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their bootstraps and give a good yank . . . > > > > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? > > >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man > > >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? > > >Not me. > > > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > > > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > > >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations > > >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. > > >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. > > > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, > > you want a earth side market for your space based industry. > > Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. > > Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. > > If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. > > > Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually > Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring > something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure > Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space > operations - not for sustaining Earth people, > but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 > > From: KellySt@aol.com > > Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. > > > [...] > > > > Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > > growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > > (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > > for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > > drifting around near earth space. > > > So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > > > So if you can cut the launch > > costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > > here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > > > One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. > You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space > will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, > unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) > > -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["723" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "09:50:22" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 723 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFiaF11717 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFiY411707 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14426 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:44:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <390078BE.40D6AEC7@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:50:22 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes > >hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. > Not really since its harder to test and you want make lift drag for highest > sppeds in rentry. It might be harder design, but all wings are harder to test at the very high speeds.The advantage with a fractal wing is that it is full of holes. if designed right really hot air would flow out the holes, yet for slower speeds with higher air density would plug the holes. >-- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1330" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "10:02:43" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1330 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFuu317558 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFus417537 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14962 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:56:50 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39007BA3.3E85C547@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004211416.QAA25393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> <39007256.5C833401@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:02:43 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see > > how > it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once > it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is using them. Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best car design we all would still be walking. Get it to work, then refine it. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Fri Apr 21 10:46:57 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3199" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "19:39:42" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3199 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LHeES29807 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LHeC429627 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA25633 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:39:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211739.TAA25633@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:39:42 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 17:29:04 2000 > From: Curtis Manges > > > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement > and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, > and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established -- > a catch-22 of sorts. > Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time of its development it is found to become even more profitable when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. What kind of an industry it could be? Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... Others wait for development of nanotechnology, as it is going to make space exploration much cheaper (but, on the other side, advanced unmanned exploration will be then even cheaper and more reliable...). Any other ideas? > But once it is established, there will be > a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to pay the investment, > but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, > and who has rights to what. That will be a simple matter of contract > and treaty _until_ someone up there sees that they have the resources > to become autonomous; then the real fun begins. > Yeah, look at the Robinson's Mars trilogy... [Though, generally, I am of rather low opinion about the book - possibly exaggerated by the awfully made Polish translation I have read...] > It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their > bootstraps and give a good yank . . . > So, ahoy, all crew on the desk! ;-)) [Sorry, I do not know the proper English maritime command language ;-))]. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 10:55:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2031" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "19:52:00" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2031 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LHqU407654 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LHqS407490 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA25646 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:52:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211752.TAA25646@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:52:00 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 18:02:13 2000 > From: Ben Franchuk > > Curtis Manges wrote: > > > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see > > how > > it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once > > it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to > > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this > can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail > roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads > more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use > more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. > Yes, but besides coal and steel, there were also other goods that benefitted from being transported by railroads (not speaking of other uses of steel and coal) - and it was they that really fuelled the cycle. Nothing of the sort is visible in space industry today. Tourism? I doubt it... > It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is > using them. Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited > for the best car design we all would still be walking. > > Get it to work, then refine it. > The problem is, there is still no market for use of heavy lift rockets - the kind needed for building our infrastructure - which were already developed in numbers, starting from Saturn V, through Russian Energia to French Ariane 5. They were/are here to take, but some already went to scrap heap and others are on the straight road to it... Just nobody has enough of heavy cargo to sustain their operation and refinement. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 11:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1776" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "12:16:10" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1776 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LIANd12458 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LIAM412436 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21915 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:10:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39009AEA.4DB6B2F3@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004211739.TAA25633@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:16:10 -0600 Zenon Kulpa wrote: > Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind > a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be > a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that > it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time > of its development it is found to become even more profitable > when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify > the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. > What kind of an industry it could be? > Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties > thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it > fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics > made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope > towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... > Others wait for development of nanotechnology, as it is going to make > space exploration much cheaper (but, on the other side, advanced > unmanned exploration will be then even cheaper and more reliable...). > Any other ideas? > Yes the internet could be the ticket, to get the ball rolling for space access. I don't mean for new data links via satalight, but rather it gives the people of earth a chance to commiunicate and mingle on world wide basis. Space access has to be global and easy access into space. Only on this scale would there be people wanting and demanding to go into space. > So, ahoy, all crew on the desk! ;-)) > [Sorry, I do not know the proper English maritime command language ;-))]. Chuckle > -- Zenon Kulpa -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1157" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:49:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1157 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wPN12561 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wO412555 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16323; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:13 -0500 Message-ID: <003901bfac06$855ed870$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <39007256.5C833401@worldnet.att.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'Zenon Kulpa'" , "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:49:21 -0500 > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The > commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up > front, and I don't see how > it could become profitable until it's established -- a > catch-22 of sorts. But once > it is established, there will be a market shift; first > profits will go dirtside to > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its > own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > This brings up a question of law and administration, of > course, and who has rights > to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty > _until_ someone up > there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; > then the real fun > begins. > > It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their > bootstraps and give a > good yank . . . Well, you have just synopsized the reasoning of the Commercial Space Transportation Study (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codec/codeci/webmaster/CommSpaceTrans/Index.h tml) for those of you who are interested. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["973" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:55:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 973 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wdY12583 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wc412578 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16343; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:19 -0500 Message-ID: <003a01bfac06$88bde1f0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <39007BA3.3E85C547@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:55:44 -0500 Ben Franchuk wrote: > > Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this > can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail > roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads > more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use > more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. Not a good analogy. Railroads would be better compared to FTL starships being invented after people had already spread to hundreds of stars, they come AFTER the market is in place, not before. > > It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is > using them. > Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best > car > design we all would still be walking. > > Get it to work, then refine it. Which is what the Space Access people are trying to do. Reinvent the Model T. Certainly not the "perfect" car, but it was the key concept that revolutionized ground transportation. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7000" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:38:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "170" "starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7000 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wM112552 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wL412536 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16317; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:10 -0500 Message-ID: <003801bfac06$82f2e180$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:38:31 -0500 > Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the > feild. Prefabing > little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means > lots more seams to > leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of > things in the > station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin > is a bit > dificult. You still missed the point, if you are only building one of the end product, it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it or boost it all at once. Cost savings arise when you build the SAME piece over and over again. (I will grant that you can't build an interstellar ship and boost it all in one piece, at least, not yet.) However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines if necessary rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. It will be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass produced in orbit from materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the components from Earth. > > > No because the infastructure to build the probes and early > stations is much > larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up front. But it is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across other projects besides just one interstellar craft. > Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of > the cost of a > good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its > facilities and such. > So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up > far far less. In > some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. Not true. See below for more. > With DC-x they found if you > launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep > most of the > same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae > a pretty low in > comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the > craft are divided > over the total number of flights. That much is true but keep going.... > If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs > dramatically. Cut costs > to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be > $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches > (under 200 tons > possible lift). Ahh, but here is the mistake. You can't realize significant cost savings with EXPENDABLE boosters such as Titan or Ariane no matter how often you launch. Sure, you get to amortize the cost of the launch crew and facilities across more launches, BUT, that launch crew and those facilities cost thousands of times what a DC-X costs to launch in the first place. Now if you can launch a DC-X on such a schedule you are right, you will reap a one hundred fold decrease in launch cost because it IS NOT EXPENDABLE. Unfortunately we need a one thousand fold decrease even for the mundane orbital industry I am promoting. Nothing currently on the drawing board is capable of putting an interstellar craft into orbit even if we could build it. Not to be repetitious but, you cannot reduce cost by 100 times no matter how many times a year you launch an expendable booster. > Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift > costs could be > cut even another factor of ten or 100. 1000! > Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to > hundreds of millions > of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in > space. But you > wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 > tons of steel. Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own way doing other things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just one more job, not THE job. > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay > lets spend ten > >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha > Centauri and > >then > >go home and quit? Not me. > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > of ships out > >to > >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > installations, the moon > >and > >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, > inhabited stations > >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced > orbital know > >how. > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration > missions, you want a > earth side market for your space based industry. Without > that it will all > blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how > much stuff you > put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be > abandoned. Similar arguments abounded when America was colonized. You should really read some of the history (and I don't mean the popular sort) of the early days of America. European investors tried all kinds of crazy schemes to make a profit in America. Glass blowing comes to mind. A man decided he would create a native glass blowing industry to export glass bottles and such to Europe. Wonderful idea, but it could never compete with the glass which was being made IN Europe, which was invariably cheaper because of transportation costs. Nevertheless, things did work out that there WERE things to trade for and here we are today. I believe that Earth will always be a market for goods which simply cannot be manufactured in a gravity well or in atmosphere, but that eventually (and rather sooner than later) space born consumers will predominate the demand. Just as in the early days of Colonial America, a mindset will develop that we (the space faring) will trade with ourselves first before we give anything to the Earth borne who put us here in the first place. > >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be > manufactured > >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is > the equivalent > >of > >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. > > Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could > easily dwarf > anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any > manufacturing > facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or > Jamaca?) But they > would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch > infastructure to drool > for, as well as residence facilities for research and > consructin platforms to > house their staffs on. Interesting point, but not quite the one I had in mind. Still you are correct, any industry in space that creates the demand for more industry starts a chain reaction that cannot help but to beneficial to us in the long run. I'm not too proud to accept tourism or even entertainment as the vehicle. Hmmm, we're back to my not so hidden agenda problem again! > Congress has to change the law and when they found Kistler > was being forced > off shore they did (I'm pretty sure). Nope, it is nothing more than a RULE established by the FAA. And like any bueuracracy, they don't want to let go of control. I will try to find references this weekend. This was a big deal a year or so ago, it shouldn't be hard to look up. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10272" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:54:15" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "213" "starship-design: Barriers to Space Tourism" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10272 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJAPd16175 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAO416168 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20277 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: <004601bfac8e$51d5c1c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Barriers to Space Tourism Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:54:15 -0500 S P A C E V I E W S Issue 1999.07.01 1999 July 1 http://www.spaceviews.com/1999/07/ Barriers to Space Tourism by Jeff Foust The concept of space tourism has been a compelling vision for many space activists. Opening space to more than just elite government-funded explorers drives to heart of many people's interest in space. Yet, nearly 40 years after the first human flew into space, we are still several years away -- according to the most optimistic estimates -- from flying passengers, rather than astronauts and cosmonauts, into space. What's holding us back? Over one hundred people gathered in Washington, DC June 23 and 24 to discuss the possibilities -- and problems -- of space tourism at the first such conference in the United States, organized by the Space Transportation Association (STA) and its Space Travel and Tourism Division. The conference brought in a diverse group of people from not just the aerospace industry, but tourism, finance, and government officials as well, debating a wide spectrum of issues related to space tourism. By the end of the conference, several key issues stood out as the major hurdles on the path to developing a space tourism industry. Some were obvious -- the lack of money to develop commercial vehicles for use in tourism -- while others were less obvious and specific to tourism alone. The conference provided no easy answers to these issues, but raised questions that will have to be answered before paying passengers can routinely fly into space. Where are the Investors? Perhaps the biggest hurdle for space tourism to overcome is one that affects not only tourism but the whole launch vehicle industry in general: a lack of money. Speaker after speaker noted the lack of investors lining up to provide money to companies developing reusable launch vehicles that could be used in space tourism pursuits. Tom Rogers of the Space Transportation Association called the lack of private-sector funding the "most important issue" to come out of the conference. While some have argued that the potentially huge demand for space tourism could prove to investors that a large enough market exists for reusable launch vehicles (RLVs), those people trying to line up funding disagree. "I never mention space tourism on Wall Street," said Rotary Rocket's Gary Hudson, noting investors' skepticism with the concept of space tourism. "I have enough problems as it is." More than one speaker noted, perhaps with a twinge of jealousy, the huge influx of venture capital going into Internet startups. "It would be great if people would invest in rocket companies like they do in Internet companies," noted Eric Anderson, vice president of Space Adventures. The chief challenge, noted LunaCorp president David Gump, is that "space and expensive go hand-in-hand" in the eyes of investors. In addition, people still closely link space with NASA, requiring some kind of seal-of-approval from the space agency for private efforts. Not everyone shared this pessimistic view of the investment market. "People are screaming for investment opportunities," claimed Wolfgang Demisch, managing director at Wasserstein, Pernella and Co. He advised companies to "go gradually" and take advantage of existing possibilities. He did note, though, that the easiest path to developing a space tourism company might involve incorporating outside the U.S, to avoid thorny regulatory issues. Tom Watts, a vice president at Merrill Lynch, concurred, saying that investors are willing to take known risks in a business but are unwilling to take legislative or regulatory risks. Perhaps the ideal position for a space tourism or launch vehicle company to be in, Watts said, is to be not the first to develop a RLV that can carry tourists, but the second. Once investors see a plan work, he explained, they "rush like lemmings" to fund similar proposals. A related issue to funding of RLVs is certification of these vehicles. The X Prize's Peter Diamandis noted that in aviation today, the cost of certifying a new aircraft can cost up to ten time as much as it did to build it. This becomes a serious issue for RLV developers, when costs to build the vehicles will go into the hundreds of millions. A key question, then, he said, is what does the certification of an RLV require, and how much will it cost? One solution that Diamandis and Patrick Collins, a space tourism researcher with the Japanese space agency NASDA, suggested is the concept of the "accredited passenger". The proposal follows existing Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, which allow companies to raise money from "accredited investors" -- companies and wealthy individuals who are aware of and willing to accept the risks of investing in an unproven company. Similarly, an accredited passenger would be a person knowledgeable about spaceflight who is aware of and willing to accept the risks of flying in a new launch vehicle that has not yet met FAA certification. Building Awareness and Credibility Dealing with the so-called "giggle factor" -- the incredulousness people express when they hear abut the concept of space tourism -- is also a hurdle for space tourism companies to overcome. Or, as Space Adventure's Anderson put it, how do you "sell space to people without sounding a little crazy?" Space Adventures's plan has been its "Steps to Space" project, where it markets a set of tours and programs that builds its way up to eventual space tourism. Their programs start with low-key programs like Space Camp and shuttle launch trips, and moves up to zero-g plane rides in Russia and flights "to the edge of space" in a MiG-25. Building up awareness and credibility is a "huge challenge", agreed Scott Fitzsimmons, vice president of Zegrahm Space Voyages. To maintain credibility, he said, space tourism companies will have to be up front with its early customers. He drew parallels between space tourism and deep-sea submersible tourism, another venture Zegrahm is involved with. The Size of the Market Another key issue brought up during the conference is the uncertainty on the size of the overall space tourism market. The number of people willing to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, to fly into space is filled with wild guesses and backed by surprisingly little research. Jerry Mallett, president of the Adventure Travel Society, surprised many when he suggested that a half-million people per year would be willing to spend $100,000 or more on a trip into space, numbers much higher than had been suggested in the past. By comparison, consultant Ivan Bekey believes that a market of 100,000 people a year could exist if prices were brought down to the $50,000-$100,000 range. These wide variations in numbers led Rogers to call for better and broader market surveys, to provide a better estimate on the number of people willing to pay a certain amount to fly. Market estimates that are within a factor of two to three are good enough, he said; the problem arises when various estimates differ by a factor of ten or more. To date, such extensive market research has not been conducted. Patrick Collins noted that less than $100,000 has been spent to date on all space tourism market surveys combined. Extensive market research might seem too expensive, Mallett noted, but may not necessarily be the case in the long run. Who Can Go? The estimates for the number of people willing to fly into space do not take into account any medical restrictions that might keep some willing passengers grounded. What restrictions that should be placed on space tourists is an area just now being investigated. The FAA's Dr. Melchor Antunano, manager of the agency's aeromedical education branch, described the work he was undertaking defining medical requirements for "aerospace pilots". While taking into account the unique rigors of the space environment, these requirements will have a "level of flexibility" in them similar to that used in private pilot certification, but much unlike NASA's strict astronaut requirements. "NASA could not use them", he said. While not necessarily an immediate problem for short, suborbital flights, the physiological and psychological effects of extended space tourism flights will also need to be investigated, according to Harvey Wickman, director of the Aerospace Psychological Laboratory at Claremont McKenna College. Microgravity will have repercussions not fully thought through now on everything from the management of bodily fluids to how people meet and interact with one another. While space tourists can't be expected to go through the extended, thorough training of astronauts, Wickman said that training will have to be longer than the preflight safety briefing on commercial aircraft today. Plans and Hope for the Future Because of the wide variety of viewpoints expressed at the conference, organizers decide to bypass plans on finding a consensus on future work to be done to promote space tourism. Instead, the STA plans to synthesize a paper based on the topics raised at the conference, seek comment from attendees, and use that to set an agenda for the next year. Progress made in the coming year will be used as the starting point for the next space tourism conference the STA is planning for next year. "There are deep-rooted institutional problems to deal with here," Tom Rogers of the STA said. "Something is different about the space business because it's so public. That's something we need to get on top of." While the near future of space tourism remains uncertain, the hope remains that one day ordinary people -- and even retired astronauts -- might fly in space. Alan Ladwig, senior advisor to the NASA administrator, tied in the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing by noting that, while Buzz Aldrin has made his interest in space tourism very clear, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins have been quiet on the issue. Ladwig, however, unearthed a comment Armstrong made in 1970 when the astronaut was asked if he thought he would ever get a chance to go into space again. "I'd be surprised if I didn't have a chance to buy a ticket some day," he said. From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1791" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:41:42" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "starship-design: FAA Regulation and Certification for Space Launch..." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1791 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJAJ516115 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAH416107 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20255 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:15 -0500 Message-ID: <004101bfac8e$4ea409d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: FAA Regulation and Certification for Space Launch... Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:41:42 -0500 Searching for info on the FAA Space Launch question, this just about all I can find. It dates from 1998. "But the key to Kistler’s plans in the Australian desert have less to do with the timing of getting its own, untested proposals into space ahead of its rivals. This proposal is all about the American regulatory environment. Technology for commercial launch vehicles is moving faster than the Federal Aviation Administration's ability to provide regulations for it. Patti Grace Smith, an associate administrator at the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, says that the development of RLVs posed "the most challenges" to the FAA. Ms Smith says the FAA currently has the power to license launch vehicle, but has no authority over landings; making it impossible for the agency to regulate and approve for use commercial RLVs. Legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives, with a similar version already drafted in the Senate, with give the FAA the authority it needs to handle reentry and reuse issues. Manuel Vega, chief of regulations of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, says 16 pages of regulations currently exist for commercial space launch vehicles, with new regulations under development. Two new regulations, which call for updated licensing rules and financial responsibility by launch companies, have been open for public comment. More ominously for South Australia is the fact that more regulations which would cover private and state-owned launch sites are under development. Such is the concern over a possibly unfavourable regulatory environment that all three companies - Kistler, Rotary Rocket and Pioneer Rocketplane - began the search two years ago for launch sites outside the United Sates. " More to come... Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["757" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:44:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "starship-design: RLVCountdown" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 757 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJALJ16122 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAJ416117 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20264 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:18 -0500 Message-ID: <004201bfac8e$5047a7b0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: RLVCountdown Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:44:50 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This page contains some great information and links to even more information on space access. http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html Lee ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="RLVCountdown.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RLVCountdown.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html Modified=10CEBEA68AACBF0138 ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0-- From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1089" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "14:49:47" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "39" "starship-design: Licensing" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1089 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJp7V25170 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJp5425164 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA25602 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:51:04 -0500 Message-ID: <004901bfac94$02595750$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Licensing Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:49:47 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I think I found some information. It would appear based on the link below that the Advanced Space Transportation office of the FAA is in fact issuing licenses to conduct launch operations. http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ Unfortunately, nothing on this page says ANYTHING about landing. There is NOTHING on this site about granting a LANDING license. Lee ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Licensing.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Licensing.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ [DOC#4#5] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/header.html ORIGURL=/licensing/header.html [DOC#4#6] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/intro.html ORIGURL=/licensing/intro.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ Modified=B0D6363D92ACBF01F7 ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50-- From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["974" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "14:57:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "starship-design: FAA - AST Strategic Plans " "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 974 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJxrH27682 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJxp427669 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA26513 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:59:49 -0500 Message-ID: <004d01bfac95$3b6e9270$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: FAA - AST Strategic Plans Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:57:27 -0500 Okay, here it is, the AST office within the FAA has finally been authorized to license reentry operations (see quote below". However, nothing has been done YET... Lee "AST Strategic Plans AST's corporate strategic project for fiscal year 1999 concerns further development and refinement of a concept of operations for an integrated Space and Air Traffic Management System (SATMS). After continued deliberations with the Office of the Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, AST intends to discuss the SATMS concept of operations with the interested public. In addition to SATMS, the Administrator's performance agreement with the Secretary of Transportation includes issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement AST's newly enacted authority to license reentry operations and active involvement in a number of integrated product teams to facilitate use by the U.S. commercial space transportation industry of Air Force space launch infrastructure." From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8124" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:54:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "227" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8124 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1teI13230 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tc413220 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.98.41dd0db (14379); Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <98.41dd0db.2633b1f2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:54:58 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 9:58:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the >> feild. Prefabing >> little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means >> lots more seams to >> leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of >> things in the >> station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin >> is a bit >> dificult. > >You still missed the point, if you are only building one of the end product, >it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it or boost it >all >at once. Well actually if you launch it in peaces its much more likely to work right, and not leak! >Cost savings arise when you build the SAME piece over and over >again. (I will grant that you can't build an interstellar ship and boost >it >all in one piece, at least, not yet.) > >However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for >instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines if necessary >rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. Probably true, course that assumes your starship can use off the shelf engines. >It >will >be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass produced in orbit >from >materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the >components from Earth. Thats a big asumption. No reason to think a space built peace of equipment would be cheaper, likely to be more expensive. Smaller market and far greater expenses for the space based manufacturing equipment and personel. >> >> >> No because the infastructure to build the probes and early >> stations is much >> larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. > >Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up front. But >it >is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across other projects >besides just one interstellar craft. Are you sure its paying its way? Unless there are a lot of projects, you could be costing more. >> Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of >> the cost of a >> good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its >> facilities and such. >> So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up >> far far less. In >> some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. > >Not true. See below for more. > >> With DC-x they found if you >> launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep >> most of the >> same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae >> a pretty low in >> comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the >> craft are divided >> over the total number of flights. > >That much is true but keep going.... > >> If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs >> dramatically. Cut costs >> to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be >> $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches >> (under 200 tons >> possible lift). > >Ahh, but here is the mistake. You can't realize significant cost savings >with EXPENDABLE boosters such as Titan or Ariane no matter how often you >launch. Sure, you get to amortize the cost of the launch crew and facilities >across more launches, === I was refuring to reusables, obviously there can't be any significant cost savings with expendables! >BUT, that launch crew and those facilities cost >thousands of times what a DC-X costs to launch in the first place. Now >if >you can launch a DC-X on such a schedule you are right, you will reap a >one >hundred fold decrease in launch cost because it IS NOT EXPENDABLE. >Unfortunately we need a one thousand fold decrease even for the mundane >orbital industry I am promoting. For those kinds of reductions, you need enough market to keep fleets of such vehicals very busy. You are after all talking about reducing cost to orbit to costs simlar to trans ocean air frieght. That takes similar sized markets, or radically improved tech. Some ae on the books, but you need massive launch requirements to run them at efficent enough rates. >Nothing currently on the drawing board >is >capable of putting an interstellar craft into orbit even if we could build >it. Not to be repetitious but, you cannot reduce cost by 100 times no matter >how many times a year you launch an expendable booster. > >> Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift >> costs could be >> cut even another factor of ten or 100. > >1000! Thats wahat I said. >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to >> hundreds of millions >> of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in >> space. But you >> wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 >> tons of steel. > >Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own way doing other >things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just one more job, >not >THE job. Ok, then you need a market large enough to keep those facilities that busy. >> >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay >> lets spend ten >> >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha >> Centauri and >> >then >> >go home and quit? Not me. >> > >> >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds >> of ships out >> >to >> >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital >> installations, the moon >> >and >> >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, >> inhabited stations >> >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced >> orbital know >> >how. >> >> Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration >> missions, you want a >> earth side market for your space based industry. Without >> that it will all >> blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how >> much stuff you >> put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be >> abandoned. > >Similar arguments abounded when America was colonized. You should really >read some of the history (and I don't mean the popular sort) of the early >days of America. European investors tried all kinds of crazy schemes to >make >a profit in America. Glass blowing comes to mind. A man decided he would >create a native glass blowing industry to export glass bottles and such >to >Europe. Wonderful idea, but it could never compete with the glass which >was >being made IN Europe, which was invariably cheaper because of transportation >costs. Nevertheless, things did work out that there WERE things to trade >for >and here we are today. > >I believe that Earth will always be a market for goods which simply cannot >be manufactured in a gravity well or in atmosphere, but that eventually >(and >rather sooner than later) space born consumers will predominate the demand. >Just as in the early days of Colonial America, a mindset will develop that >we (the space faring) will trade with ourselves first before we give >anything to the Earth borne who put us here in the first place. Nice list, but it doesn't alter the major problem. What can you sell to earth in enough volumn to pay for the operation of the platforms. >> >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be >> manufactured >> >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is >> the equivalent >> >of >> >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. >> >> Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could >> easily dwarf >> anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any >> manufacturing >> facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or >> Jamaca?) But they >> would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch >> infastructure to drool >> for, as well as residence facilities for research and >> consructin platforms to >> house their staffs on. > >Interesting point, but not quite the one I had in mind. Still you are >correct, any industry in space that creates the demand for more industry >starts a chain reaction that cannot help but to beneficial to us in the >long >run. I'm not too proud to accept tourism or even entertainment as the >vehicle. Hmmm, we're back to my not so hidden agenda problem again! > > >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1987" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:03" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1987 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tD213116 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tC413108 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.64.20011da (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.20011da.2633b1f7@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:03 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 10:25:33 AM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >> > >> Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >> a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >> or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >> you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without >> prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >> However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >> (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >> cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >> infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >> You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >> instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >> "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > >This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and >profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't >see how >it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. >But once >it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go >dirtside to >pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal >market, >like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > >This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, and who >has rights >to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty _until_ someone >up >there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; then the >real fun >begins. > >It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their bootstraps >and give a >good yank . . . Its just like every other colony or city ever founded. It needs to trade with others to survive. It needs to develope trade to even be founded. Thats why about all major cities ae on trade routes. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1389" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1389 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tEO13166 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tD413120 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.45.298805b (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <45.298805b.2633b1f9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:05 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 10:58:38 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >Curtis Manges wrote: > >> This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >> infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and >> profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I >don't see > > how >> it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. >But once >> it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go >dirtside to >> pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal >market, >> like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > >Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this >can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail >roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads >more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use >more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. > >It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is >using them. >Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best >car >design we all would still be walking. > >Get it to work, then refine it. The difference is that Ford had a market eager to buy cars. Lots of proposals for low cost lanuchers ae collecting dust for wany of buyers. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5816" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "133" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5816 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tDs13121 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tC413110 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.b4.45621db (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:01 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... > > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:22:51 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com >writes: >[...] >> >> >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote >> >> your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. >> >> You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most >> >> of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass >> >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? > >> >> If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, >> >> go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical >> >> and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial >> >> projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most >> >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise >> >> the launcher and save some serious bucks. >> > >> >Whose promoting an agenda? >> > >[...] >> >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few >> >hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. > >> >Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every >> >piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. >> >What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? >> >> If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. >> Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total >> lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year >> of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). >[...] >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds >> of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper >> in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill >> to make 40 tons of steel. >> >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are needed for something profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources then it consumes) they will never be built, because they will not be part of a better future. Same for the ships - or at least more then a couple token ships. A token fleet won't need the space mining eiather. >> >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? >> >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man >> >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? >> >Not me. >> > >> >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds >> > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital >> >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations >> >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. >> >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. >> >> Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, >> you want a earth side market for your space based industry. >> Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. >> Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. >> If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. >> >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be suplying the bulk of the technology and industry for a long time. The space colonies and starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. Unless they can pay their way, they will be shutdown when earth gets bored just like the Apollo and Russian lunar programs were as soon as their govs got bored with them. Unless you are productive, you are a pet. >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. >> >[...] >> >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil >> drifting around near earth space. >> >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) >> So if you can cut the launch >> costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down >> here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) >> >One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. >You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space >will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, >unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) But the oil hungry homes ae down here. ;) >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2305" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:07" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2305 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tNT13197 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tM413192 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.de.3f7a4dc (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:07 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 17:29:04 2000 >> From: Curtis Manges >> >> > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >> > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >> > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >> > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without >> > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >> > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >> > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >> > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >> > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >> > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >> > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >> > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... >> >> This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >> infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement >> and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, >> and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established >-- >> a catch-22 of sorts. >> >Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind >a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be >a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that >it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time >of its development it is found to become even more profitable >when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify >the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. >What kind of an industry it could be? >Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties >thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it >fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics > >made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope >towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently the mostlikely reason to develop major space launch infastructure and orbital facilities? Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6614" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "09:41:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "163" "starship-design: Manufacturing Infrastructure" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6614 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NEgl404508 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NEgj404501 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA05184; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:42:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfad32$1248e380$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <98.41dd0db.2633b1f2@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: starship-design: Manufacturing Infrastructure Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:41:26 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; KellySt@aol.com; > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel > > > > In a message dated 4/21/00 9:58:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >You still missed the point, if you are only building one of > the end product, > >it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it > or boost it > >all > >at once. > > Well actually if you launch it in peaces its much more likely > to work right, > and not leak! I wasn't arguing the technical superiority or lack thereof, just the economics of mass production. As a mater of fact, in today's industry, QA is rather much of an after thought instead of an integral part of the manufacturing process. A purpose built unit which is one of a kind and built basically by hand will almost always be superior in quality. However, once the kinks have been worked out of a manufacturing process, the _overall_ quality will be superior to the hand built unit because errors won't be repeated at random. > >However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for > >instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines > if necessary > >rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. > > Probably true, course that assumes your starship can use off > the shelf > engines. True, but let's look at a typical case. Rotary Rocket has a design for a MUCH better engine than any currently existing. However, due to time and budget constraints it made more sense to use the FasTRAC engine developed by NASA, which although better than existing engines, is still not as good as the one envisioned by Rotary Rocket. It is adequate for their needs, available now, and CHEAPER. Most of those cost savings are because the FasTRAC engine is as close as it gets to a mass produced engine. > >It > >will > >be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass > produced in orbit > >from > >materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the > >components from Earth. > > Thats a big asumption. No reason to think a space built > peace of equipment > would be cheaper, likely to be more expensive. Smaller > market and far > greater expenses for the space based manufacturing equipment > and personel. Well, since we haven't actually built ANYTHING in orbit, it is kind of hard to issue a blanket statement that it will be cheaper. I was basing that on several economic issues that are known - the cost of lifting raw materials or even not so raw ones out of Earth's gravity well chiefly. I was also assuming that the comparison was being made after the manufacturing facility was built. If we ignore the cost of the infrastructures of both groundside and space-borne facilities for the moment and simply compare the cost of the materials and delivery costs, it is FAR cheaper to obtain the materials in orbit than it is to deliver them to orbit. So much so that some economists are worrying already about what will happen to global market prices for precious metals when asteroid extraction gets into full gear. > >Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up > front. But > >it > >is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across > other projects > >besides just one interstellar craft. > > Are you sure its paying its way? Unless there are a lot of > projects, you > could be costing more. Read the Commercial Space Transportation Study. It is all laid out and totaled up. Yes it would pay its own way, but even then it still requires that launch costs drop to $100/pound to LEO, and that is just for people and consumables! > I was refuring to reusables, obviously there can't be any > significant cost > savings with expendables! Sorry, but you were unclear...at least we agree! > For those kinds of reductions, you need enough market to keep > fleets of such > vehicals very busy. You are after all talking about reducing > cost to orbit > to costs simlar to trans ocean air frieght. That takes similar sized > markets, or radically improved tech. Some ae on the books, > but you need > massive launch requirements to run them at efficent enough rates. Also pointed out in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. And as Ben and Curtis figured out for themselves, it is a Catch-22 situation. We must have the industry in space to create sufficient demand for launchers to bring the cost down to the $100-$200/pound range, but the cost has to come down to that range first in order to make the industry possible! > > >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to > >> hundreds of millions > >> of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in > >> space. But you > >> wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 > >> tons of steel. > > > >Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own > way doing other > >things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just > one more job, > >not > >THE job. > > Ok, then you need a market large enough to keep those > facilities that busy. Which brings me back to where all of this started, the optimum way to make a starship is in a space-borne shipyard that is making lots of ships with lots of experience in making all those ships, with lots of off-the-shelf components with proven life expectancies, etc. A situation that will only arise when there are several thousand to several hundred thousand people living and working in space to create that much demand in the first place! > Nice list, but it doesn't alter the major problem. What can > you sell to > earth in enough volumn to pay for the operation of the platforms. If I knew the answer to that one, I would be very busy drumming up investors right now! I and lots of other people have studied this for years, and besides the catch already mentioned there are others. At the moment asteroid mining seems to be the only thing with real potential. Tourism is a dirty word to investors and all of the Space Access companies are careful to avoid using it when they talk to potential investors. I can't say I agree, but that seems to be the reality of it. Commercial communications has been the big driving force in launchers so far, but it really doesn't require the kind of presence needed, just launchers. There are lots of possibilities and most are detailed in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. Lee "Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards." - Sir Fred Hoyle From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["980" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "09:46:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 980 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NEofj06111 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NEoe406102 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA06435; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:50:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfad33$2e4d04c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:46:24 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL > travel...] > > > > In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, > zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 > 17:29:04 2000 > >> From: Curtis Manges > > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently > the mostlikely > reason to develop major space launch infastructure and > orbital facilities? We don't have any concerns - it is the investors who have the concerns. The companies developing the low cost reusable launchers avoid even mentioning that word in front of potential investors. Beats me, I think you are right and that tourism will be one of the biggest markets. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3986" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "10:55:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "92" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space " "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3986 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NFv0j15909 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NFux415903 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA15494; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bfad3c$694efb10$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:55:37 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL > travel...] > > In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, > zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... Hereby renamed... > >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through > space without > >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > > You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are > needed for something > profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources then it > consumes) they will > never be built, because they will not be part of a better > future. Same for > the ships - or at least more then a couple token ships. A > token fleet won't > need the space mining eiather. No, not backwards, just interdependent. It's a Catch-22 situation. > >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually > >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring > >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure > >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space > >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, > >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > > Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be > suplying the bulk > of the technology and industry for a long time. The space > colonies and > starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. Unless they > can pay their > way, they will be shutdown when earth gets bored just like > the Apollo and > Russian lunar programs were as soon as their govs got bored > with them. > Unless you are productive, you are a pet. That wasn't what Zenon said. He said "if you assume that any installations in space are _eventually_ Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring something useful down here", your argument was about INITIALLY being Earth centered, which we would all stipulate without contest. I think it is fairly evident that the whole point of being there initially would be Earth-centric, but I think it is equally evident that as the off-Earth presence of people increases, more and more off-Earth market will develop. It really doesn't matter which it is or even in what proportion, as long as there is _enough_ industry of the right kinds to make building a starship economical and practical. We have already discussed the other point here several times. It is most unlikely that the first ships to go out will be anything _but_ government funded, for the same reasons. Until we get there and find out what is there, there will be no economic reason to drive a private mission to or presence at another star. > >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > >> drifting around near earth space. > >> > >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > > Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) I doubt that also, but stranger things have happened. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6449" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "11:17:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "118" "starship-design: Space infrastructure" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6449 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NGIpK19316 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NGIo419307 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA18467 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:18:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bfad3f$7f4fe2f0$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Space infrastructure Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:17:50 -0500 This is the final chapter of the Commercial Space Transportation Study without the graphics and html. The link to this page is: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codec/codeci/webmaster/CommSpaceTrans/SpaceCom mTransSec4/CommSpacTransSec4.html [begin quoted text] 4.1.3 Results Under current conditions, the space transportation market is considerably different from nonspace commercial markets. Launch infrastructure, principal launch assets, and manufacturing facilities are under the control of various branches of the U.S. government. The market is predominately determined by governmental budgets. This places a large element of market risk due to the uncertainties of annual appropriations. Transitioning to a market that is predominately commercial requires the development of new markets and a major cultural change in the ways of doing business in space. Private investment in space transportation can only be a feasible venture if the investors can be repaid. One measure of success is the internal rate of return (IRR). An IRR of 15% to 25% over the first 10 years of operations has been selected as the target value to evaluate commercial feasibility. The revenues from each flight, based upon the payload capability and the price per flight, must be balanced against the recurring cost charged to that flight, repayment of the investment debt incurred in constructing the system, and some amount of return to the commercial investors. Figure 4.1.3-1 shows the minimum average annual revenues derived from the mission capture model for the medium-probability model. Figure 4.1.3-2 shows the results from a hypothetical $5B investment scenario. The figure shows the payback cash flow per flight required to satisfy the IRR goal. It also shows the expected flight rates from the mission capture analysis at different launch prices and vehicle payload capabilities. As an illustration from the figure, a vehicle with 30,000 lb payload capability in the medium-probability model, and priced at $1000/lb pound will capture 38 flights per year. This system must achieve a payback cash flow of about $70 million per flight in order to service its debts and yield a 20% IRR after 10 years of operations. However, at $1000/lb, a 30,000-lb capability system can only achieve about $30 million in revenues, even before subtracting out recurring costs of operation. Obviously, it is not possible for such a system to be economically viable. Another example, using a vehicle with 55,000-lb payload capability priced at $600/lb, can capture 70 flights per year. It must achieve a payback cash flow of about $35 million per flight in order to service its debts and yield a 20% IRR after 10 years of operations. At a price of $600/lb, the 55,000-lb capability system can achieve about $33 million in revenues per flight. This case shows that if investors were able to accept a reduced IRR it might be possible to attain an economically viable payback. The 70 flights per year of the 55,000-lb payload capability launch system priced at $600 per pound can generate about $2,310 million in annual revenues. From this annual revenue, the operating costs must be subtracted to determine the annual payback cash flow. Figure 4.1.3-3 can be used to illustrate how this level of payback cash flow can be used to show the maximum possible investment. If annual operating costs were zero, the $2,310 million annual payback cash flow would almost be sufficient to recover a $5,000 million investment at 20% IRR after 10 years of operation. However, if annual operating costs were one-half the transportation price charged, then only $1,200 million would be available for the payback cash flow. This would only allow an investment of about $2,500 at the 20% IRR. If the operating costs were higher, even smaller investments would be economically viable. This market study did not address the cost of space launches, nor the technical requirements to achieve specific launch cost goals. However, this analysis indicates that as a commercial investment measured at standard industrial investment return levels, the investment cost for a new space launch system must be kept in the range of a few billions of dollars. This indicates a potential paradox in the commercial space transportation market. High flight rates appear to be necessary to reduce the price per flight. However, reduced price per flight reduces the revenue per flight, and consequently the cash flow available for investment payback. We have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic enough to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than the combined payback and operations costs per flight for a completely commercially developed system. To attract commercial investment it appears that some level of government participation will be necessary. There are different options that can be considered for this, ranging from government development and commercial operation (which reduces the investment cost), to market and loan guarantees (which reduce the uncertainty in the revenues). Other options including corporate tax incentive and innovative financial arrangements may also be considered. Some of these investment options are outlined in Figure 4.1.3-4, along with a brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. 4.1.4 Summary The business analysis for this initial phase of the CSTS has been used to define the economic thresholds associated with a commercially viable system. The CSTS specifically did not analyze the cost and technical constraints on a new space launch system. Parametric data relationships between investment and payback requirements indicates that a commercial space transportation system may be viable at low investment levels and higher launch rates. To achieve these demanding goals, it appears that joint government/industry investment into the development of this system will be required. There are many options yet to be examined for these investment and financial arrangements. [end quoted text] As you can see, there are more complications to this chicken and egg story than we would have thought and the forecast is even worse than we had thought. For the whole story, the main page for the study is at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codec/codeci/webmaster/CommSpaceTrans/Index.ht ml It gives detailed analysis of almost every conceivable factor affecting development of space in the next few years. From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2423" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "18:08:46" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2423 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NMB9W02264 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NMB8402259 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.250]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000423221102.EXHR1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:11:02 +0000 Message-ID: <3903746E.BADE2CC@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000501bfad33$2e4d04c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:08:46 -0400 > > > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently > > the mostlikely > > reason to develop major space launch infastructure and > > orbital facilities? > > We don't have any concerns - it is the investors who have the concerns. The > companies developing the low cost reusable launchers avoid even mentioning > that word in front of potential investors. Beats me, I think you are right > and that tourism will be one of the biggest markets. > > Lee Two things here . . . First, about tourism, of a specific type, namely human powered (self-powered) flight in zero or low gee. To me, just going up into orbit or to an orbiting station wouldn't really hold that much drawing power; there's a lot of inconvenience with peculiar plumbing, etc, and to just sit around (or float around) and look out the windows wouldn't be worth it -- it's a _passive_ experience, like watching TV. But to fly like a bird -- I've had dreams of flying, and of all the dreams I've ever had, I recall all of my flying dreams and forgot most of the rest. I think most people have had such dreams. If it were possible, if this experience were actually available, I would cheerfully spend every cent I could scrape together to go and do it, and I'm sure I'd have to get in a _long_ line for my turn. I read a description once of how this could be done; the equipment is simple, but you need a _very_ large open volume; very expensive to make, but this is something I'm sure would sell, and you sure won't get it down here. Has anyone considered approaching investors with this idea? We need some Madison-avenue types on our side here. Second, about investors and investment in general. The Commercial Space Transportation Study lays out the hard numbers, and it's difficult to argue such stuff, but think about it -- startup capital doesn't always flow to the folks who make the most sense. Look at the dot-com stock mania lately for an example; people were throwing money frantically at outfits which lost consistently for years, and even some who issued their IPO's with the caveat that they didn't expect to be profitable. This proves that emotion often overpowers reason in financial matters, and of course, it's obvious elsewhere. So maybe what we need is a really great sales pitch, spread on the internet, with glitzy special-effects simulations and such. Sell chances to fly like a bird. Has anyone thought of trying this? From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1868" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "18:54:37" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1868 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NMslp12615 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from field.videotron.net (field.videotron.net [205.151.222.108]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NMsk412605 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by field.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTH006N6RN2YQ@field.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:54:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <39037F2D.76EC29DD@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <000501bfad33$2e4d04c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> <3903746E.BADE2CC@worldnet.att.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Curtis Manges Cc: "L. Parker" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:54:37 -0400 Curtis Manges wrote: > Two things here . . . > > First, about tourism, of a specific type, namely human powered (self-powered) > flight in zero or low gee. To me, just going up into orbit or to an orbiting > station wouldn't really hold that much drawing power; there's a lot of > inconvenience with peculiar plumbing, etc, and to just sit around (or float > around) and look out the windows wouldn't be worth it -- it's a _passive_ > experience, like watching TV. But to fly like a bird -- I've had dreams of > flying, and of all the dreams I've ever had, I recall all of my flying dreams > and forgot most of the rest. I think most people have had such dreams. If it > were possible, if this experience were actually available, I would cheerfully > spend every cent I could scrape together to go and do it, and I'm sure I'd have > to get in a _long_ line for my turn. [snip] > So maybe what we need is a really great sales pitch, spread on the internet, > with glitzy special-effects simulations and such. Sell chances to fly like a > bird. Has anyone thought of trying this? Well, i think that ur right about one thing: you need not to only propose a passive adventure, you need to make the traveller active... Again, the idea of publicity is a great one(and not too hard/costly to do either) But, have you thought of the difficulties of making a big sphere in space? Just think of the radius it'd need, once you can do it, though, you'll make MONEY!!! But something even better than simple 0g would be near 0g(even lees than the moon), where you can strap on some wings, and do flapped flight... i can already see the millionaires' kids stay all year long there, flying and learning new trix instead of going to college 8) -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1018" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "19:25:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1018 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O0Spe03082 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O0So403077 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p464.gnt.com [204.49.91.80]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA10040; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:28:45 -0500 Message-ID: <000701bfad83$f1c3b840$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39037F2D.76EC29DD@videotron.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'pk'" , "'Curtis Manges'" Cc: "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:25:56 -0500 pk wrote: > Curtis Manges wrote: > > Two things here . . . > > [clip] Well, the CSTS did cover the topic thoroughly, and I happen to believe there is a large market for tourism in space, of many different kinds. The flying idea works both in Earth orbit and on the Moon...where it might be even better! Of course there are all kinds of possibilities for zero-g recreation how about zero-g football? Or handball? Zero-g billiards? Endless possibilities. As for why the launch companies shy away from mentioning tourism, I couldn't tell you. This is a simple statement made by one of the executives for one of the companies and he provided no explanations. Now for the large open areas in space. This is not really so hard. If we accept that we will need to mine asteroids for materials, it actually gets rather easy, just hollow one out and move it! It doesn't have to be spherical necessarily, just large and open. The hard part will be convincing the meek to let us move a large asteroid into Earth orbit.... Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "21:22:00" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1576 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O1Ntd16548 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O1Ns416541 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.230]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000424012347.SUZ9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 01:23:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3903A1B8.A9DA4049@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000501bfad33$2e4d04c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> <3903746E.BADE2CC@worldnet.att.net> <39037F2D.76EC29DD@videotron.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: pk , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:22:00 -0400 > > But, have you thought of the difficulties of making a big sphere in > space? Funny, but I hadn't considered a sphere . . . the description I'd read of this thing had it in a cylindrical habitat . . . the sphere would actually be easier, I think. > Just think of the radius it'd need, once you can do it, though, > you'll make MONEY!!! > But something even better than simple 0g would be near 0g(even lees than > the moon), where you can strap on some wings, and do flapped flight... I would scarcely consider doing it as zero gee, myself; I think that would be too disorienting for most folks -- you need to give short-term visitors at least a little up and down. Luna would probably work great, and the facility might be easier yet to construct; bulldoze a flat space and inflate a dome on it. You could spray cement on for shielding, and you'd have the raw material right there. But what if we got up and found a big cave on the moon? I think to do this right you'd want maybe a quarter-mile diameter enclosure minimum. Luna would be better, too, in it giving a more realistic flying experience. In zero gee, you can't really fly, like a bird, you sort of swim in the air like a fish. Given the choice, I'd rather have wings. > i > can already see the millionaires' kids stay all year long there, flying > and learning new trix instead of going to college 8) while the rest of us learn to build and fly real ships! > > -- > AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at > crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1443" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "22:09:16" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "31" "[Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1443 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O2BGv28573 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O2BF428567 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.98.148]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000424021104.BXGX9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 02:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: <3903ACCC.73E71413@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:09:16 -0400 Curtis Manges wrote: > "L. Parker" wrote: > > > > > As for why the launch companies shy away from mentioning tourism, I couldn't > > tell you. This is a simple statement made by one of the executives for one > > of the companies and he provided no explanations. > > I thought of one -- a big one -- lawsuits. The folks who can afford this are > going to have lawyers, and the first time one of them gets space sickness and > blows lunch, he'll probably try to become the new owner of the whole shebang. > Very sad, and very chilling to investors. There would have to be some sort of > ironclad way to keep this from happening. Maybe the commercial airlines could > provide a clue . . . > > I could also see a possibility of something that would put off potential > customers -- a very thick pamphlet full of "thou shalt not's" that they have to > agree to before boarding ("Rule 214.17.12b: Mention of the word "lawsuit" in > connection with this service will result in your being converted to reaction > mass at the Captain's earliest convenience.") > > > Now for the large open areas in space. This is not really so hard. If we > > accept that we will need to mine asteroids for materials, it actually gets > > rather easy, just hollow one out and move it! It doesn't have to be > > spherical necessarily, just large and open. The hard part will be convincing > > the meek to let us move a large asteroid into Earth orbit.... > > > > Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["898" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "22:41:15" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "16" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 898 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O2mjA06602 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from field.videotron.net (field.videotron.net [205.151.222.108]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O2mi406596 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by field.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTI0028F24SQI@field.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:41:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <3903B44B.AFD8942E@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <3903ACCC.73E71413@worldnet.att.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:41:15 -0400 "L. Parker" wrote: > Now for the large open areas in space. This is not really so hard. If we > accept that we will need to mine asteroids for materials, it actually gets > rather easy, just hollow one out and move it! It doesn't have to be > spherical necessarily, just large and open. The hard part will be convincing > the meek to let us move a large asteroid into Earth orbit.... What do you mean:"it doesn't have to be spherical"?? Unless you mine an asteroid(which IS a spheroid, most of the time), you'll be better with a sphere: constraints... why do you think that the earth and all other spinning object in space are more or less spheroid? Because it's the shape in which it's the easiest not to explode! Well, that's what i was taught, anyway 8) -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["665" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "23:01:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Licensing" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 665 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O31IL09898 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O31H409893 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.35.437fc8e (4239) for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35.437fc8e.263512f5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Licensing Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:01:09 EDT In a message dated 4/22/00 2:51:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > Okay, I think I found some information. It would appear based on the >link > >below that the Advanced Space Transportation office of the FAA is in fact > >issuing licenses to conduct launch operations. > > > > http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ > > > >Unfortunately, nothing on this page says ANYTHING about landing. There >is > >NOTHING on this site about granting a LANDING license. > > > >Lee Of course not, as your previous post confirmed, they have no legal authority to allow RLVlandings. The Senate has to pass the law the congress has in order to allow the FAA to consider it. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3653" "Monday" "24" "April" "2000" "00:46:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "90" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3653 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O4kNw03792 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O4kL403638 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.20.4f6dfb1 (4398) for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20.4f6dfb1.26352b92@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:46:10 EDT >> You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are >> needed for something >> profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources then it >> consumes) they will >> never be built, because they will not be part of a better >> future. Same for >> the ships - or at least more then a couple token ships. A >> token fleet won't >> need the space mining eiather. > >No, not backwards, just interdependent. It's a Catch-22 situation. You could deveop all these things without space manufacturing, possibly even cheaper then with it. Thats why no one talks about ultra pure drugs and single cryistal metals in space anymore. Those can now be done on earth for less cost then the zero-G facilities could have. You have to remember their ae billions of potential customers down here, and market size drives siting and costs. >> >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually >> >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring >> >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure >> >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space >> >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, >> >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. >> >> Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be >> suplying the bulk >> of the technology and industry for a long time. The space >> colonies and >> starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. Unless they >> can pay their >> way, they will be shutdown when earth gets bored just like >> the Apollo and >> Russian lunar programs were as soon as their govs got bored >> with them. >> Unless you are productive, you are a pet. > >That wasn't what Zenon said. He said "if you assume that any installations >in space are _eventually_ Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose >is to >bring something useful down here", your argument was about INITIALLY being >Earth centered, which we would all stipulate without contest. I think it >is >fairly evident that the whole point of being there initially would be >Earth-centric, but I think it is equally evident that as the off-Earth >presence of people increases, more and more off-Earth market will develop. >It really doesn't matter which it is or even in what proportion, as long >as >there is _enough_ industry of the right kinds to make building a starship >economical and practical. Well this group was talking mid 21st century, so obviously that can't happen in that timeframe. Past that who knows. Their are 6 billion of us customers here, and space isn't that atractive for settlers. It could well be centuries, and several major revolutions in technology, before space could develop enough of a market for that to happen. >We have already discussed the other point here several times. It is most >unlikely that the first ships to go out will be anything _but_ government >funded, for the same reasons. Until we get there and find out what is there, >there will be no economic reason to drive a private mission to or presence >at another star. Likely true. Even after, we never could figure out a reason to go often or settle in the stars. >> >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all >> >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down >> >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so >> >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil >> >> drifting around near earth space. >> >> >> >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) >> >> Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) > >I doubt that also, but stranger things have happened. ;\ >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8973" "Monday" "24" "April" "2000" "00:46:00" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "230" "starship-design: Re: Manufacturing Infrastructure" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8973 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3O4kh204080 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3O4kg404075 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.c.434ffb2 (4398); Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Manufacturing Infrastructure Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:46:00 EDT In a message dated 4/23/00 9:43:14 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; KellySt@aol.com; >> starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel >> >> >> >> In a message dated 4/21/00 9:58:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >You still missed the point, if you are only building one of >> the end product, >> >it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it >> or boost it >> >all >> >at once. >> >> Well actually if you launch it in peaces its much more likely >> to work right, >> and not leak! > >I wasn't arguing the technical superiority or lack thereof, just the >economics of mass production. As a mater of fact, in today's industry, >QA is >rather much of an after thought instead of an integral part of the >manufacturing process. Depends on the company. So put QA very high upand integral. >> >However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for >> >instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines >> if necessary >> >rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. >> >> Probably true, course that assumes your starship can use off >> the shelf >> engines. > >True, but let's look at a typical case. Rotary Rocket has a design for >a >MUCH better engine than any currently existing. However, due to time and >budget constraints it made more sense to use the FasTRAC engine developed >by >NASA, which although better than existing engines, is still not as good >as >the one envisioned by Rotary Rocket. Actualy I'm not sure if their engine would have been better, but it was mainly stockholder presure that drovre them to use NASA engine. Investors could by everything else, but their whirling dirvish engine werided them out the door. >It is adequate for their needs, available now, and CHEAPER. Most of those >cost savings are because the FasTRAC engine is as close as it gets to a >mass >produced engine. > >> >It >> >will >> >be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass >> produced in orbit >> >from >> >materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the >> >components from Earth. >> >> Thats a big asumption. No reason to think a space built >> peace of equipment >> would be cheaper, likely to be more expensive. Smaller >> market and far >> greater expenses for the space based manufacturing equipment >> and personel. > >Well, since we haven't actually built ANYTHING in orbit, it is kind of >hard >to issue a blanket statement that it will be cheaper. I was basing that >on >several economic issues that are known - the cost of lifting raw materials >or even not so raw ones out of Earth's gravity well chiefly. I was also >assuming that the comparison was being made after the manufacturing facility >was built. > >If we ignore the cost of the infrastructures of both groundside and >space-borne facilities for the moment and simply compare the cost of the >materials and delivery costs, it is FAR cheaper to obtain the materials >in >orbit than it is to deliver them to orbit. So much so that some economists >are worrying already about what will happen to global market prices for >precious metals when asteroid extraction gets into full gear. That is your unwarented assumption. Without know certain economic factors you can't tell is rawmaterials could be delivered to orbit cheaper then from Earth surface. It VERY likely that it will be a long time before raw materials could be delivered cheaper to LEO, far far longer for manufactured goods. After all, the earth is a FAR larger customer, and could expect much better economies of scale. Obviously living expenses for the personel are less. etc. I'm being so caefull to point this out, since its a unwarrented assumptin that many make. The infamous (energy cost frol Luna to Leo being 1/20th as much as Earth to LEO being an obvious example. >> >Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up >> front. But >> >it >> >is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across >> other projects >> >besides just one interstellar craft. >> >> Are you sure its paying its way? Unless there are a lot of >> projects, you >> could be costing more. > >Read the Commercial Space Transportation Study. It is all laid out and >totaled up. Yes it would pay its own way, but even then it still requires >that launch costs drop to $100/pound to LEO, and that is just for people >and consumables! Don't remember space factory complexes economics being discused in that one. Perhaps I'm thinking of another paper. My concern is its a lot easier to lower launch costs to LEO then to lower manufacturing costs in LEO. Also finding Markets in LEO is no cake walk. And deliving raw materials to LEO (in most any near future senerio) is a lot more expensive then delivering from earth to a Earth bound factory. So a LEO factory would have a LOT of disadvantages. >> I was refuring to reusables, obviously there can't be any >> significant cost >> savings with expendables! > >Sorry, but you were unclear...at least we agree! True, sorry for confusion. >> For those kinds of reductions, you need enough market to keep >> fleets of such >> vehicals very busy. You are after all talking about reducing >> cost to orbit >> to costs simlar to trans ocean air frieght. That takes similar sized >> markets, or radically improved tech. Some ae on the books, >> but you need >> massive launch requirements to run them at efficent enough rates. > >Also pointed out in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. And as Ben >and Curtis figured out for themselves, it is a Catch-22 situation. We must >have the industry in space to create sufficient demand for launchers to >bring the cost down to the $100-$200/pound range, but the cost has to come >down to that range first in order to make the industry possible! Industries like tourism can start with higher cost tours for the select (despirate) few, then phase in lower cost later. Geting from $1000 a pound to 100-200 with a RLV is mainly a fligh rate issue, and tourists could ramp up quickly enough to interest investors to fund the losses for a year or two. Normal for most busnesses. For our case however their is the lower costs for bulk cargo to consider. Systems like laser launchers, or tube launchers, are estimated at costing in the $10-$15 for large masses of cargo. >> >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to >> >> hundreds of millions >> >> of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in >> >> space. But you >> >> wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 >> >> tons of steel. >> > >> >Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own >> way doing other >> >things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just >> one more job, >> >not >> >THE job. >> >> Ok, then you need a market large enough to keep those >> facilities that busy. > >Which brings me back to where all of this started, the optimum way to make >a >starship is in a space-borne shipyard that is making lots of ships with >lots >of experience in making all those ships, with lots of off-the-shelf >components with proven life expectancies, etc. A situation that will only >arise when there are several thousand to several hundred thousand people >living and working in space to create that much demand in the first place! Its not that simple. You can't assume a starship manufactured in space would be that much cheaper then one made down here. Now theproblem of launching a assembled Starship in one peace, or exceptably sized parst, could well be a show stoper. >> Nice list, but it doesn't alter the major problem. What can >> you sell to >> earth in enough volumn to pay for the operation of the platforms. > >If I knew the answer to that one, I would be very busy drumming up investors >right now! I and lots of other people have studied this for years, and >besides the catch already mentioned there are others. At the moment asteroid >mining seems to be the only thing with real potential. Tourism is a dirty >word to investors and all of the Space Access companies are careful to >avoid >using it when they talk to potential investors. I can't say I agree, but >that seems to be the reality of it. Commercial communications has been >the >big driving force in launchers so far, but it really doesn't require the >kind of presence needed, just launchers. There are lots of possibilities >and >most are detailed in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. Some firms are talking about tourism, and some investors ae openly talking about funding such projects. Don't know when/if they'll get together. >Lee > >"Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car >could go straight upwards." - Sir Fred Hoyle Like the sig. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 17:01:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["508" "Monday" "24" "April" "2000" "19:57:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "starship-design: Space access proposal with trade offs." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 508 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3ONvm702709 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3ONvl402699 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.73.2a5bebc (7360) for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <73.2a5bebc.26363960@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Space access proposal with trade offs. Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:57:20 EDT Space access has a good paper on the nasa site: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeae/stas_spaceaccess/sa_stas.pdf Covering how their bird can cover all space shuttle missions at a fraction of the cost. Unusual since no one else suggests they can cover all the missions. If NASA was goal (not self maintenence) orented they'ld be jumping on this deal. I wonder how Kelly Aero is doing? They were ahead of the pack because they landed contracts with Iridium. Now that those aer worthless ---- From VM Mon Apr 24 18:12:35 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["939" "Monday" "24" "April" "2000" "20:08:10" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 939 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3P1A3200308 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3P1A2400297 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p473.gnt.com [204.49.91.89]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA23072 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:09:59 -0500 Message-ID: <001801bfae52$dfc3ddd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01BFAE28.F6EDD5D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:08:10 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BFAE28.F6EDD5D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had seen the SpaceCast site before, this seems to be related to it but newer: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm Its a good backgrounder on propulsion technology. Lee ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BFAE28.F6EDD5D0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A).url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A).url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm Modified=300DC86A52AEBF012F ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BFAE28.F6EDD5D0-- From VM Tue Apr 25 09:54:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1308" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "15:56:12" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1308 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PE0o603555 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PDwl403193 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA28819 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:56:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004251356.PAA28819@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:56:12 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 23 04:00:31 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > [...] > >Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind > >a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be > >a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that > >it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time > >of its development it is found to become even more profitable > >when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify > >the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. > >What kind of an industry it could be? > >Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties > >thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it > >fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of > >electronics made human crews redundant. Currently many look with > >hope towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... > > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently the mostlikely > reason to develop major space launch infastructure and orbital facilities? > My concern is that it may be not enough of a reason to start all that. Let us cross our fingers, though... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Tue Apr 25 09:54:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1239" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "16:48:22" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1239 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PF3nu04643 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PF3de04557 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA28863 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:48:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004251448.QAA28863@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:48:22 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 24 04:53:18 2000 > From: pk > > "L. Parker" wrote: > > > Now for the large open areas in space. This is not really so hard. If we > > accept that we will need to mine asteroids for materials, it actually > > gets rather easy, just hollow one out and move it! It doesn't have to be > > spherical necessarily, just large and open. The hard part will be > > convincing the meek to let us move a large asteroid into Earth orbit.... > > What do you mean: "it doesn't have to be spherical"?? > Unless you mine an asteroid (which IS a spheroid, most of the time), > It seems not - most of the small ones (below some 100 km diameter or so) are far from spheroid. > you'll be better with a sphere: constraints... why do you think that the > earth and all other spinning object in space are more or less spheroid? > Because it's the shape in which it's the easiest not to explode! > Well, that's what i was taught, anyway 8) > The reason is gravity - the stony body above that about 100 km of diameter has enough gravity to pull all the rubble into a more or less spherical shape. Fast spinning actually deforms it from a sphere into an ellipsoid. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Tue Apr 25 09:54:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1649" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "16:18:23" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1649 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PEKIk07159 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PEKF407143 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA28845 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:18:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004251418.QAA28845@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:18:23 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 25 16:06:33 2000 > From: Zenon Kulpa > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 23 04:00:31 2000 > > From: KellySt@aol.com > > > > In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > > [...] > > >Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind > > >a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be > > >a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that > > >it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time > > >of its development it is found to become even more profitable > > >when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify > > >the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. > > >What kind of an industry it could be? > > >Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties > > >thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it > > >fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of > > >electronics made human crews redundant. Currently many look with > > >hope towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... > > > > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently > > the mostlikely reason to develop major space launch infastructure > > and orbital facilities? > > > My concern is that it may be not enough of a reason to start all that. > Let us cross our fingers, though... > Ahh, let me add - it would be good to think out several other possible industries to boost space use - just in case tourism fizzles, like many other ideas before... -- Zenon From VM Tue Apr 25 09:54:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3998" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "16:15:21" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "90" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PEHGe06532 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PEHE406526 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA28841; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:15:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004251415.QAA28841@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:15:21 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 23 04:00:24 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > [...] > >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > > You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are needed > for something profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources > then it consumes) they will never be built, because they will not > be part of a better future. Same for the ships - or at least > more then a couple token ships. A token fleet won't > need the space mining eiather. > Of course you are right, Kelly, I am saying exactly that! And for this very reason I am calling for looking for that "something profitable" which may lead to the space infrastructure - before thinking seriously about building starships, as they will not be build anyway without that infrastructure. [...] > >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually > >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring > >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure > >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space > >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, > >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > > Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be suplying > the bulk of the technology and industry for a long time. > The space colonies and starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. > Unless they can pay their way, they will be shutdown when earth > gets bored just like the Apollo and Russian lunar programs were > as soon as their govs got bored with them. > Unless you are productive, you are a pet. > At the start, of course. Hence, until they became sufficiently independent (which they will strive to, once established...), you have two possibilities: - to be profitable to Earth; - to entertain it so that it is not bored... Ehem, so we found additional factor besides profitability - thanks, Kelly... > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 > >> From: KellySt@aol.com > >> Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. > >> > >[...] > >> > >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > >> drifting around near earth space. > >> > >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > > Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) > Ahh, here is the catch - we will use it NOT for burning (especially in space ...) > >> So if you can cut the launch > >> costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > >> here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > >> > >One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. > >You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space > >will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, > >unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) > > But the oil hungry homes ae down here. ;) > They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... -- Zenon From VM Tue Apr 25 09:54:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["576" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "17:11:40" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "15" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 576 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PFDdd08531 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PFDXe08488 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA28894 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:11:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004251511.RAA28894@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:11:40 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 24 06:50:43 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com [...] > Even after, we never could figure out a reason to go often or > settle in the stars. > You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planed is doomed, sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather used to plan in longer time frames too... -- Zenon From VM Tue Apr 25 16:36:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1422" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "11:36:59" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1422 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PMZuH13423 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PMZse13408 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p458.gnt.com [204.49.91.74]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA11826; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:35:39 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01bfaf06$7b77da20$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200004251415.QAA28841@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:36:59 -0500 Zenon has a point about oil, or more generally petroleum type substances which might be found in space. Many Terrestrial products are dependent upon oil for the basic material used to make them. Although it is possible to synthesize these products from basic ingredients, the processes for doing so have never really been developed and are therefore somewhat more expensive to use as long as there is plenty of oil around. So finding oil in space might be profitable after all. Not as a fuel but as raw materials to manufacture plastics, etc. On the make it in space vs. on the ground issue. Kelly's point about having learned to manufacture crystal and pharmaceuticals as well on Earth as in space perhaps needs a little clarification. Yes, we can now make the same substances _almost_ as well in gravity as out, and considerably cheaper as well. But we would never have been able to do so until _after_ we had done it in space. To use an analogy, if one wanted to paint a picture of an apple, you would take a bunch of paint and paint a picture of an apple, as long as you had seen an apple. But if you were blind, or had never seen an apple, it is very unlikely that the painting would much resemble an apple, even though you _knew_ there was such a thing as one. These crystals and pharmaceuticals didn't exist - and could not exist - in a gravity well until we had at least made them the first time in orbit. Lee From VM Tue Apr 25 16:36:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["469" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "16:28:08" "-0700" "Marc Hernandez" "marc@ias.jb.com" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 469 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3PNSAY08941 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ias.jb.com (marc@jb.com [207.189.170.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3PNS9e08935 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (marc@localhost) by ias.jb.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA00302 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:28:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: <002c01bfaf06$7b77da20$0401a8c0@broadsword> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Marc Hernandez From: Marc Hernandez Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:28:08 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, L. Parker wrote: > Zenon has a point about oil, or more generally petroleum type substances > So finding oil in space might be profitable after all. Not as a fuel but as > raw materials to manufacture plastics, etc. Is not oil made by compression of large amounts of organic matter? I am glad to see this list is still active. I am interested in starship design (both real and imaginary) from a simulation point of view. -- Marc Hernandez From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["588" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "21:47:33" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 588 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q2mpZ17895 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q2moe17887 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p473.gnt.com [204.49.91.89]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA22144; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:48:38 -0500 Message-ID: <003401bfaf29$d37d7e00$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Marc Hernandez'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:47:33 -0500 > > Is not oil made by compression of large amounts of > organic matter? Well, scientists used to believe so, but recently it has been discovered through spectroscopic analysis that chemical compounds remarkably similar to good old crude abound in space. While it may still be true that oil on Earth originated by compressing organic matter, there is now some speculation that perhaps some of it was simply trapped here during planetary formation or something. I should think it would be relatively easy to prove through carbon dating, but I haven't seen anything on it recently. Lee From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["939" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "21:12:25" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 939 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q4CQI10925 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q4CPe10920 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q4CNJ27816 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q4CQ018610; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:12:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14598.27817.570941.971768@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <003401bfaf29$d37d7e00$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <003401bfaf29$d37d7e00$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:12:25 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > > Is not oil made by compression of large amounts of > > organic matter? > > Well, scientists used to believe so, but recently it has been discovered > through spectroscopic analysis that chemical compounds remarkably similar to > good old crude abound in space. While it may still be true that oil on Earth > originated by compressing organic matter, there is now some speculation that > perhaps some of it was simply trapped here during planetary formation or > something. > > I should think it would be relatively easy to prove through carbon dating, > but I haven't seen anything on it recently. I doubt carbon dating could prove that since it isn't effective past something like a few tens of thousands of years, so it couldn't distinguish oil formed from organic matter deposited a few hundred million years ago from oil baked out of the Earth's core from stuff deposited a few billion years ago. From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4496" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "115" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4496 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5ghd03645 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gge03636 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3a.44642cd (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.44642cd.2637dbc8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:32 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 9:18:19 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 23 04:00:24 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >[...] >> >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >> >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >> >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >> >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without >> >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >> >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >> >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >> >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >> >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >> >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >> >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >> >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... >> >> You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are needed >> for something profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources >> then it consumes) they will never be built, because they will not >> be part of a better future. Same for the ships - or at least >> more then a couple token ships. A token fleet won't >> need the space mining eiather. >> >Of course you are right, Kelly, I am saying exactly that! >And for this very reason I am calling for looking for >that "something profitable" which may lead to the space >infrastructure - before thinking seriously about building starships, >as they will not be build anyway without that infrastructure. Agreed. >[...] >> >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually >> >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring >> >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure >> >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space >> >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, >> >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. >> >> Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be suplying >> the bulk of the technology and industry for a long time. >> The space colonies and starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. >> Unless they can pay their way, they will be shutdown when earth >> gets bored just like the Apollo and Russian lunar programs were >> as soon as their govs got bored with them. >> Unless you are productive, you are a pet. >> >At the start, of course. Hence, until they became sufficiently >independent (which they will strive to, once established...), >you have two possibilities: >- to be profitable to Earth; >- to entertain it so that it is not bored... >Ehem, so we found additional factor besides profitability - >thanks, Kelly... Entertainment? ;) Even now most countries economy is heavily dependant on trade. Usually they dominate in producing certain types of things and buy most of the rest from outside. Can't see space being less so. >> >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. >> >> >> >[...] >> >> >> >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all >> >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > >> >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so >> >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil >> >> drifting around near earth space. >> >> >> >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) >> >> Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) >> >Ahh, here is the catch - we will use it NOT for burning >(especially in space ...) That is where the vast bulk of it goes. >> >> So if you can cut the launch >> >> costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > >> >> here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) >> >> >> >One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. >> >You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space >> >will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, >> >unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) >> >> But the oil hungry homes are down here. ;) >> >They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... What else do you expect to be consuming all that oil? > >-- Zenon Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["835" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 835 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5gPF03571 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gNe03560 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.36.50f8c4b (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36.50f8c4b.2637dbb9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:17 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 10:14:10 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> Even after, we never could figure out a reason to go often or >> settle in the stars. >> >You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that >the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... > >Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planed is doomed, >sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed > >too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather >used to plan in longer time frames too... > >-- Zenon We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion years in it. I can't see that being a major driver. Not to mention unless we develop star ships that could carry millions of people we couldn't set up viable self sufficent colonies on other stars. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["23147" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "1048" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 23147 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5gcV03629 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gbe03618 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.ac.43d98cd (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3Q5gce03623 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:27 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 9:51:37 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> Is not oil made by compression of large amounts of >> organic matter? > >Well, scientists used to believe so, but recently it has been discovered >through spectroscopic analysis that chemical compounds remarkably similar >to >good old crude abound in space. While it may still be true that oil on >Earth >originated by compressing organic matter, there is now some speculation >that >perhaps some of it was simply trapped here during planetary formation or >something. I read something that they think that might explain why oil on earth always has a lot of helium in it. Doesn't make any sence if it was generated from old swamps. But if its from space based debries sweept up in earth formatin it does. Another big issue is oil companies ae seeing old used oil fields start to refill as if the oil is being squeezed out from for deaper resivours. Wait I have a artical someone mailed me! Subj: Endless oil Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 2:05:00 PM From: kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com To: kellyst@aol.com I remember this coming up in a conversation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-11/01/102l-110199-idx.html TOM GOLD, OIL MAN A Scientific Heretic Says We'll Never Have to Worry About Running Out of Gas By Ken Ringle Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 1, 1999; Page C01 Computers used to cost millions. Now they're being given away. The country was rapidly going broke. Now we've got a $115 billion budget surplus. Butter was bad for us. Now we're not so sure. We're being forced to reexamine all our old assumptions on millennial eve, right? So maybe we should finally pay attention to Thomas Gold. He says the world has an endless supply of oil and gas. Gold, a Vienna-born physicist, cosmologist and general scientific heavy lifter, founded and for many years directed the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. In his 79 years he's authored more than 280 scholarly papers on subjects ranging from astronomy to zoology. He's also a full-time heretic, periodically parachuting into some new scientific field and infuriating academic plodders there with some outlandishly bold new theory. More annoying, his theories usually turn out to be right. Worst of all, he thinks the orthodox have so gummed up the gates of knowledge that they were more open to breakthroughs 50 years ago. Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould has labeled Gold "one of America's most iconoclastic scientists." Says Gold himself: "In choosing a hypothesis there is no virtue in being timid . . . [but] I clearly would have been burned at the stake in another age." In 1947, fresh from pioneering wartime work on the development of radar, he used his research into high-frequency receptors to publish an entire new theory of mammalian hearing. Physiologists shrugged it off for 30 years. Until auditory technology evolved enough to prove him correct. In 1959, when everybody thought the surface of the moon was frozen lava, Gold decided it was covered with dust from meteor impacts. Footprints of the Apollo astronauts will testify eternally that he was was right about that, too. In 1967 astronomers trashed his suggestion that energy pulsating in the distant universe was the signature of collapsing stars. The subsequent observation of pulsars won two other scientists a Nobel Prize. And proved Gold correct. In 1992 he predicted that Martian meteorites might contain fossilized microbes. Four years later NASA announced the same thing. Now in a new book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Gold says the origin and bulk of biological life is not on the surface of the Earth where the birds and bunnies are, but deep within it. Moreover, that microscopic life force is fueled by an inexhaustible supply of petroleum constantly migrating outward from our planet's volcanic core. Eight years ago, when Gold was still developing his theory, some geologists were so incensed by it they petitioned to have the government remove all mention of it from the nation's libraries. "It was an effort at book-burning, pure and simple," Gold says, shuffling around a computer-buzzing, paper-littered attic study as energetically unkempt as he is. Most petroleum geologists, he says, "simply have no concept of the laws of physics at work" beneath the Earth's crust. People need to understand, he says, that the long-held assumption that oil comes from the millennial composting of dinosaurs and ancient swamps has always been dubious, whatever school science books may say. His theory of a deep, hot biosphere doesn't just solve its contradictions, it sorts out in the process such minor matters as the origin of all earthly life and its relationship with the rest of the universe. Is there any wonder it makes people nervous? Way Outside the Box What's unique about Thomas Gold, says astronomer Steve Maran of the American Astronomical Society, is that unlike most scientists who are content to "pursue the advancement of knowledge in small, incremental steps," Gold "comes up with new ideas by starting from the original principles" in some field where others have labored for years. When that happens, he's often "treated like a curiosity that can't be taken seriously," Maran says. "But he always shakes things up in a useful way, often opens up entire new areas of thought. Some denounce him even as they profit from the push he's given their thinking." "Gold's style is in turn charming, intriguing and exasperating: short on details (where the Devil lies) and long on fiats and suppositions," sighed eminent geochemist Harmon Craig of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, reviewing Gold's book in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union. But if Gold is right about subterranean microbes being the seeds of all life, and if they survive the Earth's next asteroid collision to restart evolution, he adds, "Let us hope that when new humans finally emerge and invent science they will have another Tom Gold to delight and exasperate them with his theories." On this particular day the heretic himself is stopping by the local techno-emporium to pick up a new computer. It's a Macintosh, and with its blue-and-white neon tones and "Star Trek" design it looks like something morphed from one of his theories. It's unclear just why his former computer succumbed. It was only a year old, but he may have made it think too much. "Supposedly all my files have been transferred into this one," he says skeptically, accepting only a modicum of help lugging it through the garage and up to his study. "But of course, you never really know." Gold says his curiosity has been getting him in trouble ever since his father gave him a watch when he was little and he took it apart. He's worked at reassembling things ever since. One of his boldest constructs was the steady-state theory of the universe, which is now regarded, says Craig, as "beautiful but untrue." Still, as cosmologist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton says, if Gold hadn't put forward the steady-state theory, astronomers might not have been inspired enough to dream up the Big Bang theory, which replaced it. We probably shouldn't be too hard on Gold for not quite figuring out the universe on his first try. After all, he rushed through Cambridge in only two years (there was a war on) and his degree was in engineering. But his mind had impressed his friend Hermann Bundi, one of Cambridge's famous wartime coterie of mathematical geniuses, who suggested Gold would be useful on a highly classified war project. There was only one problem: Gold was interned at the time as an enemy alien. He and his parents were Austrian citizens, and despite being refugees from Hitler (his father was Jewish), they had been technically classified as Germans by the British after war broke out in 1939. "I was probably the first person to go right from internment as an enemy to work on an ultra-secret project like radar," he muses. After the war he went back to Cambridge where, impressed with his brilliance, administrators presented him with a prized four-year fellowship to do anything he wanted. "I told them I would like to teach advanced physics," Gold remembers. "They said that was fine. But since I had never studied any physics, I had to learn it myself night by night, before each lecture." In the process, he read widely on all sides of the subject and became convinced all physics was related. From that he published his steady-state theory, which held that whatever had happened once in the universe must be occurring someplace in the universe today. That made a big splash in scientific circles and, says Gold, "I'm still not entirely sure it's wrong." From there he moved on in 1953 to become assistant to Britain's astronomer royal, who heads the Greenwich Observatory and holds one of the country's most prestigious intellectual posts. There he says he accidentally discovered the ultrasound phenomenon now used to check out unborn babies. But his boss decided it had nothing to do with astronomy and tore down his laboratory, so Gold left for the United States. He landed in Harvard in 1955, "either the youngest or the second youngest full professor on the faculty. I forget which." But he refused to live in Boston and detested commuting from the suburbs, so within four years he had migrated to a "much more livable" environment at Cornell. He's been here causing trouble ever since. Fueling Passion Gold, who holds prestigious appointments to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London, turned his attention to petroleum during the energy crisis of the late 1970s. He has not been universally welcomed by industry geologists. Gold's hypothesis on the origin of petroleum amid deep hot life "is not very well defended," sniffed geoscientist Alton Brown of Atlantic Richfield in a review of "The Deep Hot Biosphere" in American Scientist last July. "We . . . know too much about the subsurface and about petroleum geochemistry to seriously consider these ideas." But Gold is used to being dissed. While scientists like Brown have traditionally sought to explain petroleum by looking in the ground, Gold says, he developed his theory by looking in the other direction. Far from being an earthly substance, he says, petroleum and its component hydrocarbons are present throughout the universe. You find them in meteorites. You find them in captured interplanetary dust. You can detect them quite abundantly on one of the moons of Saturn. About all this there is no scientific argument. As an astronomer and geophysicist, he says, "it always seemed absurd to me to see petroleum hydrocarbons on other planets, where there was obviously never any vegetation, even as we insist that on Earth they must be biological in origin." Yet wherever earthly petroleum is found, even miles below ground, oil always contains biological material, such as the wreckage of old, dead cells. If "fossil fuel" wasn't formed from ancient plants and animals, how did that material get there? Another puzzle bothered Gold, though he says it seems to concern few others: the gas helium. Helium is one of the essential elements of the universe, present in trace amounts everywhere in nature. As a so-called "noble" gas, it stays chemically aloof from other elements, never combining like, say, hydrogen and oxygen do to form a third substance like water. Yet the only place on Earth helium is ever found in abundance is with pools of petroleum underground. What, Gold wondered, could explain that? Then in 1977 a tiny research submarine probing deep beneath the Pacific Ocean near the Galapagos Islands discovered something that revolutionized our understanding of life. More than 1 1/2 miles down on an ocean floor made otherwise barren by darkness and crushing pressure, the sub's floodlights revealed entirely new ecosystems living amid the scalding 600-degree heat and mineral-rich eruptions of subsea volcanic vents. On subsequent expeditions, scientists were astounded to find an entire food chain at the vents--blood red giant tube worms, albino crabs and other creatures--thriving on previously unknown forms of heat-loving microbes where no possibility of life was thought to exist. That got Gold thinking. Last year, in his book "Consilience," Harvard entomologist E.O. Wilson, a polymathic heretic like Gold, stirred the scientific pot by arguing that all forms of human knowledge are really branches of biology, and serve an evolutionary goal. But Gold goes further than that. "Perhaps biology is just a branch of thermodynamics," he has written, and the history of life is just "a gradual systematic development toward more efficient ways of degrading energy. . . . The chemical energy available inside a planetary body is then more likely to have been the first energy source, and surface creatures--like elephants and . . . people--which feed indirectly on solar energy--are just a [much later] adaptation of that life to . . . circumstances on the surface of our planet." Endless Oil? Working from that hypothesis, Gold's theory goes like this: Oil and gas were born out of the Big Bang and trapped in the Earth 4.5 billion years ago in randomly dispersed molecular form. But the intense heat of the Earth's volcanic core "sweats them out" of the rocks that contain them, sending them migrating outward through the porous deep Earth because they are more fluid and weigh less. In a region between 10 and 300 kilometers deep, the hydrocarbons nourish vast colonies of microbes where all of earthly life began, and where today there's a vastly greater mass of living things than exists on the surface of the planet. The migrating oil and gas "sweep up" the biological wreckage of this life as they percolate upward, together with molecules of helium, all of which eventually get trapped and concentrated for periods in near-surface reservoirs where oil is usually found. As far out as all this may sound, in the years since Gold first noised the outlines of his theory, researchers throughout the world have documented extensively the presence of active microbes in the deep Earth under conditions of heat and pressure once thought impossible to sustain life. Furthermore, some oil reservoirs long thought exhausted now appear to be mysteriously refilling. Gold considers the best proof of his program the extraction of 12 tons of crude oil in 1990 from a 6-kilometer-deep well drilled in the long-presumed oil-free granite of central Sweden. Chris Flavin of World Watch Institute says he's found many elements of Gold's theory "pretty persuasive" in the light of such discoveries, and says there's much to cheer environmentalists. If Gold is right, he says, the greatest abundance of accessible hydrocarbons will be found in the form of natural gas. Gas is not only the cleanest-burning energy source right now, it promises "to be the bridge to the hydrogen economy in the future" which will be cleaner still, he says. But skeptics remain. "We know there's carbon deep within the Earth because that's where we find diamonds," says Nick Woodward, a geoscience program manager with the Energy Department. "And we know there's water, at least in small amounts, which, since it's hydrogen and oxygen, gives us the building blocks for petroleum hydrocarbons. . . . "But whether that therefore means the source of all hydrocarbons is in the deep Earth, I think that's highly questionable." Gold shrugs off such unbelievers. The scientific world, allegedly searching for truth, is really little more hospitable to it than when Galileo fell afoul of the Inquisition, he says. "You know, I am very lucky that I received recognition and honors early in my career, so that by the time I started making real waves I already had stature," he says. "Even with my record I've had a terrible time getting some of these papers published. Without it nobody would touch me. . . . "The problem is this system of peer review" wherein established scholars in a field pass judgment on new papers before publication, he says. "That rewards small steps but discourages bold ideas and the very sort of cross-discipline thinking that can provide the greatest breakthroughs. I don't think there's any question that we produced more great ideas in the first half of the 20th century than we have in the second"--when peer review has ruled. Nevertheless, Gold soldiers on. He's presently writing his memoirs of a lifetime of heresy. Chosen title: "Getting the Back Off the Watch." © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:00 -0500 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:04:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id OAA07875; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:04:30 -0600 (CST) Received: from mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.150) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma007731; Mon, 27 Mar 00 14:03:39 -0600 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA14802 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:03:37 -0600 (CST) Received: by crnotes.collins.rockwell.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 862568AF.006E3027 ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:03:32 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL From: "Kelly G Starks" Sender: "Kelly G Starks" To: kellyst@aol.com Message-ID: <862568AF.006E2D19.00@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:57:59 -0600 Subject: Endless oil Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable >I should think it would be relatively easy to prove through carbon dating, >but I haven't seen anything on it recently. > >Lee I read somthing From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["933" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 933 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5gcR03622 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gae03612 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.bc.4453b4c (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:21 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 6:30:14 PM, marc@ias.jb.com writes: >On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, L. Parker wrote: > >> Zenon has a point about oil, or more generally petroleum type substances >> So finding oil in space might be profitable after all. Not as a fuel >but as >> raw materials to manufacture plastics, etc. > > Is not oil made by compression of large amounts of organic matter? Terchnically the stuff in space would be considered a hydrocarbon sludge, but its pretty much indistinquishable from Earthly oil. So close that some ae reconsidering how oil is formed on earth. Anyway one good sized commet core in near earth orbit has been identofied as having nearly 1000 times as much oil as opec produced in its best year. > I am glad to see this list is still active. I am interested in >starship design (both real and imaginary) from a simulation point of view. Welcome to the club. ;) >-- >Marc Hernandez Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1639" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1639 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5hGJ03843 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5hFe03838 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.b7.27444f7 (7556); Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:29 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 9:02:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 23 04:00:31 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >[...] >> >Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind >> >a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be >> >a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that >> >it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time > >> >of its development it is found to become even more profitable >> >when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify >> >the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. >> >What kind of an industry it could be? >> >Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties >> >thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it >> >fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of >> >electronics made human crews redundant. Currently many look with >> >hope towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... >> >> What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently the mostlikely > >> reason to develop major space launch infastructure and orbital facilities? >> >My concern is that it may be not enough of a reason to start all that. >Let us cross our fingers, though... > >-- Zenon Kulpa It started the current airlines and air tourist industries. One of the few industries to routinely shell out billions of dollars on projects. But like you said well see. Just nothing else screeming on the horizon. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["827" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 827 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5ggx03640 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gfe03634 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.e3.39b1ccd (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:33 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 9:22:43 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > >> > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently >> > the mostlikely reason to develop major space launch infastructure >> > and orbital facilities? >> > >> My concern is that it may be not enough of a reason to start all that. >> Let us cross our fingers, though... >> >Ahh, let me add - it would be good to think out several other >possible industries to boost space use - just in case tourism fizzles, > >like many other ideas before... > >-- Zenon I'ld agree if I could think of any. :( Did look into raw material sales to earth, but unless you can download for pennies, or at worst dimes a pound your to expensive. Did some numbers on that using big heavy, electric steam rockets. But it still seemed marginal. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1987" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "01:42:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1987 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q5gPX03575 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q5gOe03566 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.63.4bc1b4a (7556) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <63.4bc1b4a.2637dbbb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:42:19 EDT In a message dated 4/25/00 5:36:09 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Zenon has a point about oil, or more generally petroleum type substances > >which might be found in space. Many Terrestrial products are dependent >upon > >oil for the basic material used to make them. Although it is possible to > >synthesize these products from basic ingredients, the processes for doing >so > >have never really been developed and are therefore somewhat more expensive > >to use as long as there is plenty of oil around. > > > >So finding oil in space might be profitable after all. Not as a fuel but >as > >raw materials to manufacture plastics, etc. Only if the facilities use so much they it pays for them to manufacture and use it in space. You have to compete with the huge efficent markets and manufacturing infastructure on Earth. >On the make it in space vs. on the ground issue. Kelly's point about having > >learned to manufacture crystal and pharmaceuticals as well on Earth as >in > >space perhaps needs a little clarification. > > > >Yes, we can now make the same substances _almost_ as well in gravity as >out, > >and considerably cheaper as well. But we would never have been able to >do so > >until _after_ we had done it in space. To use an analogy, if one wanted >to > >paint a picture of an apple, you would take a bunch of paint and paint >a > >picture of an apple, as long as you had seen an apple. But if you were > >blind, or had never seen an apple, it is very unlikely that the painting > >would much resemble an apple, even though you _knew_ there was such a thing > >as one. These crystals and pharmaceuticals didn't exist - and could not > >exist - in a gravity well until we had at least made them the first time >in > >orbit. Many were never made in space before they were made on the ground, and their ground manufacture is very different processes. Irrelavant though. The industrial money won't be going into space industries or infastructure. >Lee From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1593" "Tuesday" "25" "April" "2000" "23:03:49" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "28" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1593 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q63oo09857 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q63ne09851 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3Q63lJ23617 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3Q63oM19229; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:03:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14598.34501.631152.727476@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36.50f8c4b.2637dbb9@aol.com> References: <36.50f8c4b.2637dbb9@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:03:49 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion years in it. I > can't see that being a major driver. Not to mention unless we develop star > ships that could carry millions of people we couldn't set up viable self > sufficent colonies on other stars. That's making the assumption that one has to have millions of people around to make all the various bits of technology needed for a self-sufficient technological society. It's not untenable, although not soon to happen, that automated production methods using robots or nanotech could produce a fairly compact general-purpose assembler that could be used to self-sufficiently manufacture the kinds of things it takes millions of people to manufacture now (when you count obtaining and refining raw materials, running the various social structures needed, etc.). One of the things I see you do over and over again, Kelly, is assume that the current constraints on space travel and technology will always be true from now on. Space travel won't always be in the hands of NASA or government bureaucracy; current economic conditions and constraints won't last forever; technology won't always be just what we have now. If you're talking about the near-term problems with building space infrastructure, then the kind of assumptions you make aren't too unreasonable, but your assumptions will be long dead when we actually do build interstellar spacecraft. You may as well say that the technology we have now couldn't really exist because of limitations of medieval technology and government. From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1405" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "11:22:57" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "36" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1405 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QANBD15624 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QAN9e15617 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (ost_exch_ldbal.sky.co.uk [195.153.219.158]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06741 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:13:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:22:53 +0100 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS02 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:22:52 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:22:57 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: L. Parker [mailto:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Sent: 20 April 2000 23:25 > To: 'pk'; 'N. Lindberg' > Cc: 'starship design' > Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. > > Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT an example. All > monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and therefore > are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, on the other hand, you are > referring to hypergolic propellants (say explosives), I would advise against them. > They are volatile and tricky to handle. The Federal government doesn't even allow > transport of the components within fifty miles of each other. > > Lee Quick correction - hydrazine *is* indeed a monopropellant. Example: on two of the satellites we operate, it is stored in liquid form under pressure, in titanium alloy tanks. Opening a tank valve results in the hydrazine liquid being pressure-fed to a thruster, where it passes over a catalyst bed and decomposes to provide thrust. Another method that can be employed is to use a small amount of oxidiser to provide a hypergolic reaction - the thermal energy causing decomposition. Once the oxidiser is used up, the reaction continues as the hydrazine rapidly decomposes. The catalytic reaction mentioned above is exothermic, which provides enough heat to start and maintain the decomposition process. Chris From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1731" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "14:43:39" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1731 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QCiVP03536 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QCiSe03527 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA29902; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:43:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004261243.OAA29902@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:43:39 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 26 07:44:05 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > >[...] > >> Unless you are productive, you are a pet. > >> > >At the start, of course. Hence, until they became sufficiently > >independent (which they will strive to, once established...), > >you have two possibilities: > >- to be profitable to Earth; > >- to entertain it so that it is not bored... > >Ehem, so we found additional factor besides profitability - > >thanks, Kelly... > > Entertainment? ;) > > Even now most countries economy is heavily dependant on trade. > Usually they dominate in producing certain types of things > and buy most of the rest from outside. Can't see space being less so. > Entertainment in a loose sense... Making earthlubbers interested in funding something in space not for (direct) profit but for some other reasons - ideology, custom, fun, etc. See how many things on Earth now are funded that way - from churches to TV networks... [...] > >> >> So if you can cut the launch > >> >> costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > > > >> >> here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > >> >> > >> >One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. > >> >You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space > >> >will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, > >> >unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) > >> > >> But the oil hungry homes are down here. ;) > >> > >They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... > > What else do you expect to be consuming all that oil? > Plastics. There is no other resource in space that can be used to produce them... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed Apr 26 10:02:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1260" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "14:48:29" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "33" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1260 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QCn8v03946 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QCn4e03939 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA29908; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:48:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004261248.OAA29908@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:48:29 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 26 07:44:05 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/25/00 10:14:10 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> Even after, we never could figure out a reason to go often or > >> settle in the stars. > >> > >You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that > >the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... > > > >Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planet is doomed, > >sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed > >too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather > >used to plan in longer time frames too... > > > >-- Zenon > > We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion > years in it. I can't see that being a major driver. > The explosion of the Sun was only an off-the-shelf example - there are other threats within much smaller time frame. > Not to mention unless we develop star ships that could carry > millions of people we couldn't set up viable self > sufficent colonies on other stars. > First, I think that with appropriate technology they may _start_ from far smaller population. Second, millions, if need be, can be carried in test tubes... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed Apr 26 15:41:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3003" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "18:21:14" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "60" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3003 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QMLfj25109 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QMLee25084 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.e4.4243899 (4245) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:21:14 EDT In a message dated 4/26/00 1:05:35 AM, stevev@efn.org writes: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion years >in it. I > > can't see that being a major driver. Not to mention unless we develop >star > > ships that could carry millions of people we couldn't set up viable >self > > sufficent colonies on other stars. > >That's making the assumption that one has to have millions of people >around to make all the various bits of technology needed for a >self-sufficient technological society. > >It's not untenable, although not soon to happen, that automated >production methods using robots or nanotech could produce a fairly >compact general-purpose assembler that could be used to >self-sufficiently manufacture the kinds of things it takes millions of >people to manufacture now (when you count obtaining and refining raw >materials, running the various social structures needed, etc.). Assuming all current industrial processes, and the interaction between skilled manufacturing staffs and industrial infastructure, is replaced is a bit of a streach for this conversation. ;) To put put it mildly, that would invalidate virtually all of our conversations. Also the olds of it happening in a century or two ae not at all good. >One of the things I see you do over and over again, Kelly, is assume >that the current constraints on space travel and technology will always >be true from now on. Space travel won't always be in the hands of NASA >or government bureaucracy; current economic conditions and constraints >won't last forever; technology won't always be just what we have now. >If you're talking about the near-term problems with building space >infrastructure, then the kind of assumptions you make aren't too >unreasonable, but your assumptions will be long dead when we actually do >build interstellar spacecraft. You may as well say that the technology >we have now couldn't really exist because of limitations of medieval >technology and government. Not at all. Certainly for the constraints of LIT we need to stick to what could happen in the next few decades, but even currently NASA isn't the big player (certainly never was the big facilitator) in space travel. Ceratinly my discussion of lowering cost to orbit shows that. I do assume normal rules of economics and colonization will remain. You won't do something that isn't valued over its cost. You won't settle anywhere unless its economically profitable. Etc. These have held across millenia of history and vast shifts in social and political organization. (Even across species.) So they should hold in any reasonble distence into the future. I asume we could technically build interstellar craft, of the types we've outlined in LIT, in 50 years. We couldn't afford them without some major industrial process changes by then, and much past then the changes in our physics knowledge would change the basic designs and economics. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 15:54:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1528" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "15:53:10" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1528 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QMrDX12196 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QMrCe12190 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3QMrAJ13603 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3QMrCH22359; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:53:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14599.29526.994999.301643@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:53:10 -0700 (PDT) KellySt@aol.com writes: > I do assume normal rules of economics and colonization will remain. You > won't do something that isn't valued over its cost. You won't settle > anywhere unless its economically profitable. Etc. These have held across > millenia of history and vast shifts in social and political organization. > (Even across species.) So they should hold in any reasonble distence into > the future. > > I asume we could technically build interstellar craft, of the types we've > outlined in LIT, in 50 years. We couldn't afford them without some major > industrial process changes by then, and much past then the changes in our > physics knowledge would change the basic designs and economics. Well, if you want to look at historical trends, remember that the cost of manufacture for any particular thing goes down over time, so spacecraft that seem prohibitively expensive to build now will become cheaper to manufacture, and quite likely eventually will be affordable to organizations other than the largest governments or corporations. Basically, what I do see you doing is extrapolating _current_ cost-benefit ratios well beyond their reasonable period of validity. It's true that the culture we have now won't go to the stars because we would consider it too expensive and unprofitable. But our culture won't last forever, and the cultures that do go to the stars will likely do so with lower perceived costs for the effort and different notions of what is economically profitable. From VM Wed Apr 26 17:04:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5818" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "19:59:57" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "191" "Fwd: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5818 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R009917163 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R008e17158 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.78.4725f7d (3310) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <78.4725f7d.2638dcfd@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_78.4725f7d.2638dcfd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Fwd: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:59:57 EDT --part1_78.4725f7d.2638dcfd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/00 11:07:53 AM, kgstarks%ROCKWELL@collins.rockwell.com writes: > >very good site. Certainly shows that the military is doing much more long >ranged thinking then NASA! NASA still insists that the shuttle will be >the >backbone of all maned space flight by 2020. The mil is mentioned systems >from Black Hourse to anti-mater as under consideration (if considered of >dubious utility) for use by 2025. > >I guess we should not that the military is a customer for low cost space >access whos demands could support some very impresive infastructure and >vehical projects. > >Kelly > > > > > >KellySt@aol.com on 04/26/2000 12:41:54 AM > >To: kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com >cc: > >Subject: Fwd: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting > Pillar... (Appendix A) > > > >In a message dated 4/24/00 8:10:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > >> I had seen the SpaceCast site before, this seems to be related to it >>but >> >>newer: >> >> >> >> http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm >> >> >> >>Its a good backgrounder on propulsion technology. >> >> >> >>Lee --part1_78.4725f7d.2638dcfd_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (rly-yc01.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.33]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:07:53 -0400 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:07:11 -0400 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id LAA27466; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:07:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Received: from mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.152) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma027042; Wed, 26 Apr 00 11:05:59 -0500 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA09620 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:05:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Fwd: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A) To: KellySt@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:00:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CollinsCRSMTP01/CedarRapids/Collins/Rockwell(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/26/2000 11:05:57 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit very good site. Certainly shows that the military is doing much more long ranged thinking then NASA! NASA still insists that the shuttle will be the backbone of all maned space flight by 2020. The mil is mentioned systems from Black Hourse to anti-mater as under consideration (if considered of dubious utility) for use by 2025. I guess we should not that the military is a customer for low cost space access whos demands could support some very impresive infastructure and vehical projects. Kelly KellySt@aol.com on 04/26/2000 12:41:54 AM To: kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com cc: Subject: Fwd: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A) In a message dated 4/24/00 8:10:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > I had seen the SpaceCast site before, this seems to be related to it >but > >newer: > > > > http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm > > > >Its a good backgrounder on propulsion technology. > > > >Lee Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3]) by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:10:25 -0400 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:10:11 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3P1A3200308 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3P1A2400297 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p473.gnt.com [204.49.91.89]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA23072 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:09:59 -0500 From: "L. Parker" To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: AF2025 v2c5-6 Spacelift 2025 The Supporting Pillar... (Appendix A) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:08:10 -0500 Message-ID: <001801bfae52$dfc3ddd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=" ----=_NextPart_000_0019_01BFAE28.F6EDD5D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" I had seen the SpaceCast site before, this seems to be related to it but newer: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm Its a good backgrounder on propulsion technology. Lee [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v2c5/v2c5-6.htm Modified=300DC86A52AEBF012F --part1_78.4725f7d.2638dcfd_boundary-- From VM Wed Apr 26 17:04:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["444" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "20:00:50" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 444 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R00xZ17492 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R00we17478 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.e4.422f9fe (3310) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:00:50 EDT In a message dated 4/26/00 7:45:04 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >> >> >They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... >> >> What else do you expect to be consuming all that oil? >> >Plastics. There is no other resource in space that can be used >to produce them... Billinos of metric tons? And what do you do with the rest of the crude you distile out to make the plastic feed stock. >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 17:04:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1201" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "20:00:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1201 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R01c517843 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R01be17835 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.98.44d6aff (3310); Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <98.44d6aff.2638dd2f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:00:47 EDT In a message dated 4/26/00 7:49:46 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that >> >the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... >> > >> >Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planet is doomed, > >> >sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed >> >too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather >> >used to plan in longer time frames too... >> > >> >-- Zenon >> >> We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion >> years in it. I can't see that being a major driver. >> >The explosion of the Sun was only an off-the-shelf example - >there are other threats within much smaller time frame. Such as? >> Not to mention unless we develop star ships that could carry >> millions of people we couldn't set up viable self >> sufficent colonies on other stars. >> >First, I think that with appropriate technology they may _start_ >from far smaller population. Second, millions, if need be, >can be carried in test tubes... Embryos don't run factories or set up colonies. Nor can a small crew raise millions of successors. >-- Zenon Kulpa > Kelly From VM Wed Apr 26 17:20:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2371" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "20:19:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2371 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R0JV924610 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R0JUe24605 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.73.2b8bd5e (3312) for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <73.2b8bd5e.2638e17e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:19:10 EDT In a message dated 4/26/00 5:53:34 PM, stevev@efn.org writes: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > I do assume normal rules of economics and colonization will remain. > You > > won't do something that isn't valued over its cost. You won't settle > > > anywhere unless its economically profitable. Etc. These have held >across > > millenia of history and vast shifts in social and political organization. > > > (Even across species.) So they should hold in any reasonble distence >into > > the future. > > > > I asume we could technically build interstellar craft, of the types >we've > > outlined in LIT, in 50 years. We couldn't afford them without some >major > > industrial process changes by then, and much past then the changes in >our > > physics knowledge would change the basic designs and economics. > >Well, if you want to look at historical trends, remember that the cost >of manufacture for any particular thing goes down over time, so >spacecraft that seem prohibitively expensive to build now will become >cheaper to manufacture, and quite likely eventually will be affordable >to organizations other than the largest governments or corporations. But we can only guess past the next century, and the economics of colonys has never been influenced by the afordability of the colony to private groups. After all the US was colonized by private groups, not governments (excluding prison dumping). And its data of sucess/failure of city colonies folows the trends I mentioned. >Basically, what I do see you doing is extrapolating _current_ >cost-benefit ratios well beyond their reasonable period of validity. >It's true that the culture we have now won't go to the stars because we >would consider it too expensive and unprofitable. But our culture won't >last forever, and the cultures that do go to the stars will likely do so >with lower perceived costs for the effort and different notions of what >is economically profitable. But, we have found no profitable reasons to go to the stars, and if the economics of star travel is droped, compeating intrests will also be lowered. And again, all technical data becomes invalid after a century due to technology changes. For example if we develope a cheap hyperspace drive, the isolation of a colony might be non existent. Hence no need to set up massive self-suficent colonies. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 27 09:33:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6915" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "22:42:54" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "144" "starship-design: [Fwd: Spider-web sensor reveals a flat universe]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6915 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R2irK10468 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R2iqe10462 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.134]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000427024438.IEEN12683.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 02:44:38 +0000 Message-ID: <3907A92D.8A50836D@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: [Fwd: Spider-web sensor reveals a flat universe] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:42:54 -0400 Well, folks, Earth may not be flat, but the universe apparently is. I'm not sure what this means, but it's pretty cool. JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE > JET PROPULSION LABORATORY > CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY > NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION > PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 > http://www.jpl.nasa.gov > > Contact: Michelle Viotti (818) 354-8774 > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 26, 2000 > > SPIDER-WEB SENSOR REVEALS A FLAT UNIVERSE > > Inspired by the elegant efficiency of spider webs, > researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, > Calif., have designed a tiny, web-shaped sensor that maps faint > structures in the early universe, reinforcing theories that the > cosmos is flat in its geometry. > > (A NASA news release describing the overall results may be found > at ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/2000/00-067.txt .) > > Carried on an internationally sponsored balloon experiment > called BOOMERANG (Balloon Observations of Millimetric > Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics), the dime-sized sensor > known as a "micromesh bolometer" is a prime example of NASA's > success in developing miniaturized, high-performance technologies > for space missions. > > "Just as spiders spin their webs with the least amount of > silk possible, we were able to eliminate 99 percent of the > material used by conventional bolometers," said Dr. James Bock, > who led in the detector's development at JPL's Microdevices > Laboratory. "The supporting material for our detector even has > the same thickness as a strand in a spider's web -- about one > micron thick, or one hundred times finer than a human hair." > > Using advanced micro-machining techniques, each section of > the sensor's web was designed to be smaller than the millimeter > wavelength of radiation streaming in from the cosmic microwave > background. Created when the first atoms formed in the early > universe, the cosmic microwave background has cooled a thousand > times from its original temperature -- comparable to the hot > surface of the Sun -- to the cold, faint radiation seen today. > > While the cosmic microwave background is almost perfectly > uniform in all directions, the sensitivity of JPL's bolometer > allows scientists to capture temperature variations of only 100- > millionths of a degree (0.0001 C) in just a few seconds of > observing time. > > "That's sensitive enough to detect the heat given off by a > coffee maker all the way from the Moon," said Bock. > > By measuring one small patch of sky after another over > several days of observation, the bolometers plot a map of the > cosmic background radiation, providing a snapshot of the universe > when the radiation formed about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. > At this time, regions with a higher density of matter and energy > left a record in the background radiation. Wherever dense > regions existed, they left a faint imprint of slightly higher > temperatures. These fluctuations in the background serve as a > kind of fingerprint, allowing scientists to discriminate between > theories of cosmic development. > > With the bolometer's high level of sensitivity, the > BOOMERANG project was able to reveal density patterns in the > young universe that are consistent with an inflationary theory of > cosmic development. This theory proposes that, in the first > moments after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of > extreme, exponential inflation. The theory further predicts a > "flat" geometry for the universe, because the immense stretching > of space during an inflationary period would have removed any > initially strong curvature in the smaller and denser early > universe. > > "Think of it this way," explains Bock. "If we were to > balance on a large ball, we would certainly feel the curvature > beneath our feet. Expand that ball to the size of the Earth, and > we experience that space as flat. Now think about blowing up > that ball to a cosmic scale, and you can imagine how inflation > would vastly flatten the visible universe." > > To test cosmic development theories even further, future JPL > bolometers will fly on the European Space Agency's Far Infrared > and Submillimetre Telescope (FIRST) and Planck missions, both > scheduled for launch in 2007. Using bolometers with 10 times > higher performance, Planck is expected to provide the definitive > map of variations in the cosmic microwave background, while FIRST > will survey some of the earliest galaxies. In the meantime, > scientists will be studying the BOOMERANG map over the next few > years to gain a better understanding of the nature and > composition of matter in the universe. > > The BOOMERANG results were obtained through a balloon > experiment in 1998 that carried JPL's bolometer in a sensitive > receiver 36 kilometers (23 miles) above the atmosphere in > Antarctica. Because Antarctica provides 24-hour sunlight and > winds that blow in a circular pattern around the continent, the > balloon experiment was able to maintain continuous measurements > over a 10-1/2 day period. > > The scientific results will be published in the April 27 > issue of Nature. Information on the BOOMERANG project can be > found at http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~boomerang and > http://oberon.roma1.infn.it/boomerang . For images of JPL's > micromesh bolometer and its results, see > http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pictures/boomerang . > > The BOOMERANG Project was led by Dr. Andrew Lange of the > California Institute of Technology and by Dr. Paolo DeBernardis > of the University of Rome La Sapienza. Primary funding for > BOOMERANG was provided by the National Science Foundation and > NASA in the United States; the Italian Space Agency, the Italian > Antarctic Research Programme and the University of Rome La > Sapienza in Italy; and the Particle Physics and Astronomy > Research Council in the United Kingdom. The Department of > Energy's National Energy Research Supercomputing Center provided > high-level computer analysis of the data. > > The Microdevices Laboratory is a state-of-the-art research > and technology-development facility in the Center for Space > Microelectronics Technology at JPL. Funding for the micromesh > bolometer came from JPL's Technology and Applications Programs > Directorate. JPL is managed by Caltech on behalf of NASA. > > ##### > 4/26/00 MV > #00-40 > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to JPL's news mailing list. To unsubscribe, > please send an e-mail to JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov and in the body > of the message include the following line. > > unsubscribe news > > Please do not reply to this e-mail. > For help, send a message to listmaster@www.jpl.nasa.gov. From VM Thu Apr 27 09:33:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1094" "Wednesday" "26" "April" "2000" "20:45:33" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "19" "starship-design: [Fwd: Spider-web sensor reveals a flat universe]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1094 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R3jku25781 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R3jie25771 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3R3jhJ25642; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3R3jcT24275; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14599.47069.596382.182067@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3907A92D.8A50836D@worldnet.att.net> References: <3907A92D.8A50836D@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Curtis Manges Cc: starship Subject: starship-design: [Fwd: Spider-web sensor reveals a flat universe] Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > Well, folks, Earth may not be flat, but the universe apparently is. I'm > not sure what this means, but it's pretty cool. This is a major item of debate in cosmology. If the global curvature of the universe (in the general relativistic sense of the overall curvature of spacetime) is positive, then the universe is "closed", and the current expansion of the universe will slow down, stop, and then reverse towards collapse. If the curvature of the universe is "flat", then the universe will expand forever; if the curvature is negative, then the expansion will accelerate. Unfortunately it is not definitively clear which of these cases is true. Different attempts at estimating the expansion rate of the universe have given different results. Last year, another group said that the measurements of the redshifts of very distant supernovae indicated that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, meaning that the global curvature would be negative. So far estimates of the total mass in the universe give a mass that is too small for positive curvature. From VM Thu Apr 27 09:33:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["677" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "16:41:56" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 677 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3REglv19864 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3REgXe19823 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA01005 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:41:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004271441.QAA01005@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:41:56 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 27 02:01:03 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/26/00 7:45:04 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > >> > >> >They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... > >> > >> What else do you expect to be consuming all that oil? > >> > >Plastics. There is no other resource in space that can be used > >to produce them... > > Billinos of metric tons? > Who said we _must_ use all of these billions of tons in one moment? > And what do you do with the rest of the crude you > distile out to make the plastic feed stock. > Simply left it in the place it was mined from... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Thu Apr 27 09:33:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2294" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "16:40:10" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "54" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3REgAR19759 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3REf2e19577 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA01002 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:40:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004271440.QAA01002@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:40:10 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 27 02:01:45 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/26/00 7:49:46 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> >You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that > >> >the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... > >> > > >> >Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planet is doomed, > > > >> >sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed > >> >too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather > >> >used to plan in longer time frames too... > >> > >> We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion > >> years in it. I can't see that being a major driver. > >> > >The explosion of the Sun was only an off-the-shelf example - > >there are other threats within much smaller time frame. > > Such as? > Nearby supernova explosion. Nearby passage of some massive object (a star, a brown dwarf) making havoc with planetary orbits. > >> Not to mention unless we develop star ships that could carry > >> millions of people we couldn't set up viable self > >> sufficent colonies on other stars. > >> > >First, I think that with appropriate technology they may _start_ > >from far smaller population. Second, millions, if need be, > >can be carried in test tubes... > > Embryos don't run factories or set up colonies. > Nor can a small crew raise millions of successors. > An initial crew will set up initial colony using the technological resources brought with them, and then start to raise successors to replenish their intelectual/cultural/genetic supply. Not all the millions at the same time - so many they can raise, successively raising more with the help of growing numbers of already raised. Millions of test tubes are needed for: - sufficient genetical diversity; - possibility of faster grow of population than with the "traditional" means only (so to say ;-) The initial resources carried with the ship(s) should be enough to last until the numbers of growing population will be sufficient for sustaining the civilization development without further aid. A few further supply ships may ease the transition - they can be build & crewed by additional colonists that made their minds later... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Thu Apr 27 16:04:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["983" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "19:02:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 983 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3RN43t10445 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3RN42e10429 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id f.6a.2401db4 (4238); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6a.2401db4.263a211d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:02:53 EDT In a message dated 4/27/00 9:43:18 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 27 02:01:03 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/26/00 7:45:04 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >> >> >> >They will be in space too - but will not use it for burning... >> >> >> >> What else do you expect to be consuming all that oil? >> >> >> >Plastics. There is no other resource in space that can be used >> >to produce them... >> >> Billinos of metric tons? >> >Who said we _must_ use all of these billions of tons >in one moment? > >> And what do you do with the rest of the crude you >> distile out to make the plastic feed stock. >> >Simply left it in the place it was mined from... Then why bother? If your only talking aboutprocesing a few milllion tons of material, using probably thousands of tans of refinery complex, is it worth the trouble to set up the refinery colony? >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Thu Apr 27 16:08:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2983" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "19:02:50" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "76" "Re: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2983 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3RN3DZ10199 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3RN37e10120 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.84.47f5d8b (4238) for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <84.47f5d8b.263a211a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 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: Infrastructure in space Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:02:50 EDT In a message dated 4/27/00 9:43:55 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 27 02:01:45 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/26/00 7:49:46 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >> >> >You bet? Think what would happen if astrophysicists find out that > >> >> >the Sun is going to blow in a hundred or so years... >> >> > >> >> >Generally, a civilization that is confined to one planet is doomed, >> > >> >> >sooner or later. That which settles all the planetary system is doomed >> >> >too, though in a much larger time frame. But such one will be rather >> >> >used to plan in longer time frames too... >> >> >> >> We're around a middle aged star. Its got another 4-5 billion >> >> years in it. I can't see that being a major driver. >> >> >> >The explosion of the Sun was only an off-the-shelf example - >> >there are other threats within much smaller time frame. >> >> Such as? >> >Nearby supernova explosion. Nearby passage of some massive object >(a star, a brown dwarf) making havoc with planetary orbits. No supernovas possible with any star close enough to hurt us, even if our planetary orbits were trashed, settling in space colonies would be easier, quicker, more comfortable, safer. >> >> Not to mention unless we develop star ships that could carry >> >> millions of people we couldn't set up viable self >> >> sufficent colonies on other stars. >> >> >> >First, I think that with appropriate technology they may _start_ >> >from far smaller population. Second, millions, if need be, >> >can be carried in test tubes... >> >> Embryos don't run factories or set up colonies. >> Nor can a small crew raise millions of successors. >> >An initial crew will set up initial colony using the technological >resources brought with them, and then start to raise successors >to replenish their intelectual/cultural/genetic supply. >Not all the millions at the same time - so many they can raise, >successively raising more with the help of growing numbers of >already raised. >Millions of test tubes are needed for: >- sufficient genetical diversity; >- possibility of faster grow of population than > with the "traditional" means only (so to say ;-) The limiting factor in traditional replacements-- ;) -- is the efort to raise and train them. Even raising 5-6 kids per couple would be a strain, limiting the growth rate to tripling per generatin. Say 10 fold growth per century. Since the origional equipment can be assumed to be worn out in 40-50 years, you still short factory workers. And again why? >The initial resources carried with the ship(s) should be enough >to last until the numbers of growing population will be sufficient >for sustaining the civilization development without further aid. >A few further supply ships may ease the transition - they can be >build & crewed by additional colonists that made their minds later... > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Fri Apr 28 10:09:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["149" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "22:26:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 149 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3S3Tut11911 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3S3Tse11899 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA01279; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:29:35 -0500 Message-ID: <004a01bfb0c1$e18045c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:26:35 -0500 > Billinos of metric tons? And what do you do with the rest of > the crude you > distile out to make the plastic feed stock. Fertilizer.... Lee From VM Fri Apr 28 10:09:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["543" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "22:11:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTLtravel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 543 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3S3UE612021 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3S3UCe12015 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA01156; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:28:21 -0500 Message-ID: <004801bfb0c1$a3b2e450$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTLtravel...] Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:11:00 -0500 > Anyway one good sized commet core in near earth orbit has > been identofied as > having nearly 1000 times as much oil as opec produced in its > best year. Not that I doubt you, but I would like to ask for more details. To wit: 1) What was that good year worth in dollars to OPEC? 2) What was the per barrel price of oil that year? 3) What is the per barrel price of oil a the moment? 4) What is the total value of that comet core? I suspect it is quite a bit of money and I can see several possibilities for soft landing the oil.... Lee From VM Fri Apr 28 10:09:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1497" "Thursday" "27" "April" "2000" "22:22:08" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1497 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3S3Tuh11912 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3S3Tse11900 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA01183; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:28:44 -0500 Message-ID: <004901bfb0c1$c04a3a50$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Walker, Chris'" , "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:22:08 -0500 > Quick correction - hydrazine *is* indeed a monopropellant. > Example: on two > of the satellites we operate, it is stored in liquid form > under pressure, in > titanium alloy tanks. Opening a tank valve results in the > hydrazine liquid > being pressure-fed to a thruster, where it passes over a > catalyst bed and > decomposes to provide thrust. > > Another method that can be employed is to use a small amount > of oxidiser to > provide a hypergolic reaction - the thermal energy causing > decomposition. > Once the oxidiser is used up, the reaction continues as the hydrazine > rapidly decomposes. > > The catalytic reaction mentioned above is exothermic, which > provides enough > heat to start and maintain the decomposition process. Thanks Chris, but both reactions you just described are bipropellant. The catalytic reaction breaks the hydrazine down to liberate a small quantity of oxygen for use as an oxidizer. The hypergolic reaction uses a mixture of hydrazine - typically mono-methyl hydrazine mixed with an oxidizer such as nitrogen tetraoxide to produce spontaneous combustion. Although both reactions are exothermic, the hypergolic one is much more so. The key word was the last one in your post - decomposition - as opposed to combustion. I spent many years working with these fuels and acquired a healthy respect and understanding of them, mostly by having the bejeesus scared out of me. You have to be there when the leak check detector turns purple to understand... Lee From VM Fri Apr 28 10:09:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["16293" "Friday" "28" "April" "2000" "01:23:54" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "333" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTLtravel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 16293 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3S5O9r07719 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3S5O8e07714 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.c6.474c02e (3703) for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 01:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3S5O8e07715 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTLtravel...] Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 01:23:54 EDT In a message dated 4/27/00 10:30:34 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Anyway one good sized commet core in near earth orbit has >> been identofied as >> having nearly 1000 times as much oil as opec produced in its >> best year. > >Not that I doubt you, but I would like to ask for more details. To wit: > >1) What was that good year worth in dollars to OPEC? >2) What was the per barrel price of oil that year? >3) What is the per barrel price of oil a the moment? >4) What is the total value of that comet core? > >I suspect it is quite a bit of money and I can see several possibilities >for >soft landing the oil.... > >Lee Sorry, typo, it was thousands of years worth in NEO. As to more specific numbers: Near earth comet core 5 Kilometers in diameter 20 billion tons of water ice 20 billion tons of organic componds (crude oil / oil shale) (i.e. 20 OPEC max years of output.) 20 billion tons of ceramic ores 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide ice >>> Oil value <<< 600 gal of fuel < 5000 lb ??? roughly 500 lb / barrel ?? 20 billion tons = 80 billion barrels-ish = $800 billion Note I'm not not sure if oils 300 or 500 Lb per barrel ================================================= Delta V needed to LEO 1-2 kilometer/sec 1,000,000 secounds = 11.6 days for accel of .002 m/s2 for 1 e6 you get a 2km/sec Delta V thrust about 12 e6 tons thrust Spec impulse ? (lox/LH = 300-500? Fusion/elect 3,500-5,000 solar thermal 1000-2000) Spec impulse 1000 Reaction mass of 12 e9 tons Spec impulse 2000 Reaction mass of about 6 e9 tons ------------------------------------------ Calc using solar thermal numbers Delta-V 2,000 m/s Spec imp 2000 you get a 2km/sec Delta V With =================================== Below are parts of letter about a oil shuttle idea I was playing with. Its kind of fragmentary, but I'll forward them now and if you have trouble I can sort things out later. Sorry.== One problem that came up when I was looking over the numbers for the “Steel Challenge†scenerio was how do you deliver the cargo to earth? Now the major cost is to launch a craft to orbit, not to land it. But the sale price of comodities on earth is very low per pound. Oil weighs about 500 pound per barrel, and for crude costs about $16 a barrel. The cost per barrel changes frequently. Back in the OPEC days it was up to $36 a barrel for a bit (even higher if you account for inflation) afterwards it droped bellow $10 a barrel. Now its $16, but it will decline as the deacades continue. Buy the time of this senerio they could have to sell their oil for $10 a barrel, or about two cents a pound. Steel and such usually doesn’t go for a lot more, even specialtiy alloies seldom go for dollars a pound. So I wond up with trillions of dollars of materials in orbit, and no way to profitably bring it to market. My first idea was an old one. Wrap the cargo in a thick layer of foamed rock. Then drop it into the ocean. The foam rock would burn off and insulate the cargo during reentry, and would help it float once in impacted the ocean. But I wasn’t sure what it would cost to wrap this stuff, nor did the idea of droping hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of tons of cargo toward a mid ocean impact. In theory you could make stearable craft to land more gently, and maybe you could build them cheaply enough to be a throwaway, or make them out of valuble materials that can be profitably scraped out after the delivery, but it didn’t seem likely. All in all a reusable craft seemed better. After all if you could build a throw a way drop ship cheeply enough to deliver cargo. A reusable ship should be even more economical. One advantage these craft would have is they would only need to launch themselves empty to orbit. They would land with a huge weight in cargo, but empty would weigh much less for launch back to space. Hence the name Downloader, since its built to take cargo down, not launch it into space. Looking over aircraft data. Some millitary bombers can lift 2.5 times their empty weight. But the best design to lift heavy crago into the air is a flying wing like the B-2 stelth bomber. It, as near as I can figure from unclassified info, can lift 8 times its empty weight. The B-2 uses high streangth composites, but using foamed alloys I'ld think 20-30 times dry weight may be possible. (I.e. its a metal plane with 1/10th the weight) A flying wing should be able to do better. Now most cargo delivery has learned that big craft are proportionally easier and cheaper to operate then fleets of small craft. One of the biggest cargo craft are the oil supper tankers. They weigh in at one million tons fully loaded. Obviously a big step up from a 200-300 ton airliner, but then you have about tweenty billion tons of cargo to ferry down to market, and you probably want to sell it fairly quickly. (The investors want their money back.) So how big would a million ton flying wing be? The wing loading on a B-2 flying wing is about 70 lb per square foot. So to lift a million tons of cargo craft (or at least to hold it in the air long enough to land it) you’ld need: 1,000,000 tons = 2,000,000,000 pounds 2,000,000,000 (pounds) / 70 (pounds/square-foot) = 29,000,000 square foot of wing area, about a square mile. That comes out to a delta wing shape about a mile long with a 2 mile wing span. REALLY big! But their are ways to drop that down a bit. First if you fly faster you have much more lift per wing area. Tripple the flight speed and the lifting abilaties go up about nine fold. Of course landing is a problem, but then their ground effect. Ground effect is the interaction of the wings air and the ground. Effectivly the air gets compressed between the wing and the surface underneiath it. Some systems can lift 3-4 times their flight weights while in ground effect. Given the huge wings were talking about, the Downloader could get into ground effect while hundreds of feet above the ground. Once in ground effect it slow down to a far lower landing speed. Now you can’t land to fast or your craft takes a real beeting. So lets say the downloader flys with 4 times the wing loading of a B-2 flying wing, and needs a long slow down in ground effect. 2,000,000,000 (pounds) / 280 (pounds/square-foot) = 7,000,000 square foot of wing area, about a half mile on a side square. This comes out to a craft with delta wings a half mile long and one mile wide. Presumably the empty weight of the craft would also scale down, making it even lighter at take-off. Certainly better, but still monsterous. We almost certainly could build it, we’ve designed bigger things. Could we afford to build it? Well construction costs are hard to figure. If you scaled the costs up linearly with the dry weight of the craft in comparison with a B-2 bomber, it would cost about a half trillion dollars. But about half the cost of military aircraft is for their avionics and military needs. Obviously this wouldn’t scale up at all in cost, and would actually be largely unnessisary for a comercial craft. Also the B-2 is precisly made to extreamly tight tolerences, with expensive composites, to allow its stealth abilities. This craft wouldn’t need anywhere near that degree of precision. If, as was suggested for the Downloaders, you were runing off huge strips of the wing like slabs of metal in a steel mill. Taking a hard temperature tolerant skin and reenforcing it with strips of foam metal crudly welded on (nearly poored on), and with a forest of foamed metal cross beems and trusses fused into place by robots. Costs would be dramatically lower. More like the costs of a skyscraper or ship. Even lower given the high levels of automation my Jones-Sinclair emphasised. Instead of costing two three hundred billion dollars, it might cost only a few hundred million to build. Given it lands with forty million dollars worth of oil each trip, it could quickly pay back that investment. Could it function being that crudely made? Could it last very long? Given a large ship it could be made more robustly, and hence more damage tolerant. Also it could be made less precisely then a craft that needs to fly efficently for long distences, so even if badly banged up it could still do its job. With its high wing loading it would have a high reentry heating. On the other hand given its size it could have a thick skin that could withstand the heat better, or it could cycle water through the hot spots for cooling and to feed steam powered retro and control rockets to help it down. So you have a craft thats more like a ship then an aircraft in many respects. It should see years of service. Fuel and reaction mass costs would be negligible for this craft. Distiled sea water, or comet melt would feed its engines reaction mass requirements for free. A few dollars worth of fusion fuel would feed each reactor for a year of continuous operation. So what do we have so far? The crafts empty weigh could be 20th or 30th of its loading landing weight, but we want it tough enough to take a lot of abuse. So lets assume its landing weight was about 1/8th its loaded weight, or 125 thousand tons. She’ld need about 40% that weight in water to launch herself into space as a pure rocket, but using the fusion motors to directly heat the outside air could drop that to 26%, but the boost to lagrage and a little reserve for emergencies would counter that. Ad in about 25 thousand tons of other cargo and you are taking off with a fifth the weight you landed with. Which should be a big help in getting this monster off the ocean surface. Assume the wings are sweept back a bit for stability, and the wings about a half mile frount to back in the center, but the tips would hang back about a quarter mile back farther. So: Downloader stats Wing span 1 mile Wing root length 1/2 mile long Craft length 3/4th mile Craft height 120 feet weight Speed Landing 1,000,000 tons 300 mph to ground effect (?) 150 mph surface landing (?) Take-off 200,000 tons 80 mph (?) Take-off reaction mass 50,000 tons Cargo (t/o) 25,000 tons Cargo (t/o) 875,000 tons Empty 125,000 tons ===================== So to land 500,000 tons would take a 20,000 ton craft. But if we triple the landing speed, the lift should go up by a factor of 10 (I think) needing a 900 ft by 900 ft. Wing loading B-2 70 Lb per square foot Shuttle 75-82 Lb per square foot (lands at over 200 mph) Venture Star 45 Lb per square foot Maybe we could scale it up!! Kelly ____________________________________________ There seems to be a confusion over my downloader Idea. Namely, that its impossibly with present technology to build a craft that large that can fly. That's not the case. Such a wing has a couple of quirks, but it also lacks a lot of the problems you'd assume. The structure of a mile wide flying wing is essentially a reinforced box beam. In English a thick walled tube with lots of internal cross bracing. With enough of this it could serve as a one mile wide bridge. Similar structures are used to build bridges. However unlike a bridge, or a normal aircraft wing, the load and support isn't concentrated in particular points. The cargo (1 million tons of it) is assumed to be a liquid (or blocks of ore) which are scattered about the full volume of the wing. So the load for the wings structure and cargo is only supported by the wing structure immediately around it. (Also pumping cargo around can be used to trim for balance or maneuver if your into that.) Since this wing lands on water, no special structure needs to be included to support the weigh from landing gear. The wing does need to be stiff enough to keep from fluttering around from turbulence, but that's not as big a problem, and if necessary you can damp it out with local aerodynamic controls. About all the heavy loads are front to back. The engine thrust could be scattered along the rear edge of the wing to even out the load, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to worry about. To think of the load factors imaging the flying wing tipped up on its tail and only supported in the center. Each end is again a box beam a half mile long and a half mile high. The strength of such a structure is related to the length vrs the highth at the supporting point. A 5 or 10 to 1 ratio is good. A one to one ratio with solid skin reinforcement is fantastic!. A half mile truss bridge isn't unusual, and ours is way over designed. Especially given the relatively light thrust loads. Landing is a problem, but on the scale of this ship the ocean is effectively glass smooth, and little turbulence can effect it. Tipping the nose up at launch, or the nose slapping down when the trailing edge starts to drag into the water is a high load, but carefully landing can balance out about all of that. Again, given its size it will give a very smooth ride, with little ability to get gossled off is course. The engines construction is assumed to be electric heating of water or air as a reaction mass. Not real complicated, and very effective! However it assumes a lot of electricity. I assumed beamed microwaves or fusion reactors for the power source. Given this isn't going to be needed for a couple decades, and you'd need a big powerful energy source to get enough cargo to fill this thing, one of the other options are highly likely to be avalible at that time. I used the fusion reactor Bussard discussed in the papers I've already discussed. So all in all this is not pushing the technology envelope to a great degree. A bigger question is the cost of building it. Since it is so crude and heavy, it should be pretty cheep compared to a aircraft. Also given that it isn't constrained by the harbors and ground facilities of conventional ports and airports, Its economies of scale should make it very attractive to bulk cargo shippers like oil and ore. Its the same logic that got us oil tankers and ore freighters that dwarf aircraft carriers. Kelly ============ other lets ======= $ KW-h cost per Kilogram to orbit. 1cent per kw-h at spec imp 350 = $0.138 $/kg to land with 10 to 1 lift capacity and asuming Power to orbit costs are 1/3rd cost to orbit. $0.041 kg 1 barrel of oil is 42 gallons, or 5.6145 cubic feet. Oil weighs about 53 pounds per cubic foot. (http://pump.net/liquiddata/wdspecgrav.htm) So a barel of oil weighs 298 pounds. At $10 a barrel thats 30 pounds per dollar , or 3.3 cents per pound or 7.26 cents a kilo. If the electric and maintenence costs can be kept down, it is commercially viable to sell crude oil to earth from space. Or you could refine it in space for more profit. As for a list of other delta V's of interest: Table 1 Mission Velocity Requirements (delta-v) Earth surface to LEO 8.0 km/s Earth surface to escape velocity 11.2 km/s Earth surface to GEO 11.8 km/s LEO to escape velocity 3.2 km/s LEO to Mars or Venus transfer orbit .7 km/s LEO to GEO 3.5 km/s LEO to HEEO 2.5 km/s LEO to Moon landing 6.3 km/s LEO to Near Earth Asteroid approx 5.5 km/s NEA to Earth transfer orbit approx 1.0 km/s Lunar surface to LEO (with aerobraking) 2.4 km/s Phobos / Deimos to LEO 8.0 km/s Given the NEA to LEO number of 1.0 k/s, its not going to add much to the drop costs. I was asuming the bulk material would be in L-5 or some orbit between earth and moon. That isn't listed, but I remember that LEO to GEO is higher then LEO to lunar orbit. So I figure 3.5 km/s to get there is a good guess. From VM Fri Apr 28 10:09:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1903" "Friday" "28" "April" "2000" "10:12:14" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1903 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3S9CQF14288 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 02:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3S9COe14281 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 02:12:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (ost_exch_ldbal.sky.co.uk [195.153.219.158]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25020 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:02:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:12:02 +0100 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS02 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:12:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:12:14 +0100 > -----Original Message----- > From: L. Parker [mailto:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Sent: 28 April 2000 04:22 > To: 'Walker, Chris'; 'starship design' > Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. > > Thanks Chris, but both reactions you just described are bipropellant. The > catalytic reaction breaks the hydrazine down to liberate a small quantity of > oxygen for use as an oxidizer. The hypergolic reaction uses a mixture of > hydrazine - typically mono-methyl hydrazine mixed with an oxidizer such as > nitrogen tetraoxide to produce spontaneous combustion. Although both > reactions are exothermic, the hypergolic one is much more so. > The key word was the last one in your post - decomposition - as opposed to > combustion. Hi Lee, I thought the catalytic reaction was: 3.N2H4 -> 4.NH3 + N2 In otherwords, no oxygen involved (or liberated). I use the term 'monopropellant' here as the hydrazine is the only fuel carried on board (hence 'one propellant'). AS far as I know, the catalyst bed doesn't decompose or contribute oxygen atoms to the reaction, so isn't an oxidiser. As you say, the hypergolic reaction is a bipropellant one; I used this as an example of hydrazine being used in a bipropellant system to differentiate it from the monopropellant catalytic reaction. It may be that we're arguing over semantics here...I define a monopropellant system as one which uses one fuel only (eg. you only have hydrazine tanks), a bipropellant system uses both a fuel and oxidiser (eg. your example above), carried in separate tanks. What would you call a monopropellant? SRB's? > I spent many years working with these fuels and acquired a > healthy respect and understanding of them, mostly by having the bejeesus > scared out of me. You have to be there when the leak check detector turns purple to > understand... Sounds like you've got some good stories there ... Chris From VM Sun May 7 16:56:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1317" "Saturday" "6" "May" "2000" "13:57:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "40" "starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1317 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e46J5kE05755 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e46J5iT05749 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p467.gnt.com [204.49.91.83]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA12052 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 14:05:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfb78d$f0ea9380$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01BFB764.0822E360" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 13:57:17 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BFB764.0822E360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Talk about being out of touch with research...this was written by Freeman Dyson of all people for Time magazine. Check the article at: http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/science/stars.html Lee ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BFB764.0822E360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Talk = about being out=20 of touch with research...this was written by Freeman Dyson of all people = for=20 Time magazine. Check the article at:  http://w= ww.time.com/time/reports/v21/science/stars.html
 
Lee
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BFB764.0822E360-- From VM Sun May 7 16:56:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["643" "Saturday" "6" "May" "2000" "12:23:09" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 643 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e46JMd009338 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e46JMXT09323 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e46JMW700140 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e46JNBw08022; Sat, 6 May 2000 12:23:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14612.28957.395600.607198@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000201bfb78d$f0ea9380$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <000201bfb78d$f0ea9380$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 12:23:09 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > Talk about being out of touch with research...this was written by Freeman > Dyson of all people for Time magazine. Check the article at: > http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/science/stars.html I'm not sure what you mean about being out of touch with research, but Dyson does fairly eloquently state the problems with developing interstellar spacecraft, particularly the amounts of energy required. I think he may be a bit pessimistic about the rate of technological development, and he's also only looking at low-velocity travel. Anyone know how to find Robert Forward so I could ask him join our mailing list :-)? From VM Sun May 7 16:56:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["862" "Saturday" "6" "May" "2000" "17:23:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 862 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e46MPMp18633 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 May 2000 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e46MPLT18628 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p467.gnt.com [204.49.91.83]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA10511 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 17:25:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfb7a9$d9283470$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <14612.28957.395600.607198@localhost.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Starship-Design \(E-mail\)'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 17:23:51 -0500 > I'm not sure what you mean about being out of touch with research, but > Dyson does fairly eloquently state the problems with developing > interstellar spacecraft, particularly the amounts of energy required. > > I think he may be a bit pessimistic about the rate of technological > development, and he's also only looking at low-velocity travel. > > Anyone know how to find Robert Forward so I could ask him join our > mailing list :-)? The statement that really bothered me was the one about heat control. He seemed to be assuming that we would only be able to use material means to control heat absorption by the engine. There are already several magnetic nozzle test beds running that circumvent most of this problem. We did have a research engineer lurking on the list last year, I don't remember his name, just that he was some sort of physicist. Lee From VM Sun May 7 16:56:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["267" "Sunday" "7" "May" "2000" "18:26:43" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 267 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e47GRQX10260 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 09:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e47GROT10249 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 09:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA08500; Sun, 7 May 2000 18:26:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200005071626.SAA08500@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, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: Will We Travel to the Stars? by Freeman Dyson Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 18:26:43 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 6 21:27:47 2000 > From: Steve VanDevender [...] > > Anyone know how to find Robert Forward so I could ask him join our > mailing list :-)? > Look at http://www.whidbey.com/forward/ -- Zenon From VM Mon May 8 16:44:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["803" "Monday" "8" "May" "2000" "19:39:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "starship-design: Freeman dyson on star travel" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 803 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e48NdZZ19797 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 16:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e48NdYT19790 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 16:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.a8.4ca6bd8 (4563) for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 19:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 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: Freeman dyson on star travel Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 19:39:19 EDT >Talk about being out of touch with research...this was written by Freeman > >Dyson of all people for Time magazine. Check the article at: > >http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/science/stars.html > > > >Lee Dysons being a dweeb. Its a known constant problem of old scientists that they get to over confident. Imagine they asked a similarly eminent scientist at 1900 if we would send people to the moon and automatic camera systems to planets with cameras that automatically transmitted back images by wireless. He would have had equally good reasons for explaining how silly that sounded. That we have no idea how to make such spphisticated automitons. Or engines with such power levels. Electronics, nuclear power, cybernetics, aerospace, etc would all be rediculas fantasies. Kelly From VM Fri May 12 16:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["432" "Friday" "12" "May" "2000" "18:48:30" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume?" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 432 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4CMmiJ11396 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4CMmhT11390 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.bd.33817c8 (4241); Fri, 12 May 2000 18:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kryswalker@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, jcavelos@mindspring.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, mdlynlv@pa.net, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, indy@the-line.com, alwermter@netzero.net Subject: starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume? Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:48:30 EDT In case you were wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume. Here's a good little web page, including reports from folks that had it happen to them. One guy said the last thing he remembered before he passed out was feeling the water on his tounge boil. Kelly In a message dated 5/12/00 8:47:32 AM, kgstarks@collins.rockwell.com writes: > >The page is: > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/vacuum.html From VM Fri May 12 16:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1943" "Friday" "12" "May" "2000" "18:48:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "starship-design: Fwd: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1943 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4CMmX111294 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4CMmWT11282 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 15:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.29.506b7a9 (4241); Fri, 12 May 2000 18:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.506b7a9.264de435@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_29.506b7a9.264de435_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, ric.hedman@micropath.net, RICKJ@btio.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: No Subject Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:48:21 EDT --part1_29.506b7a9.264de435_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/12/00 1:13:02 PM, kgstarks@collins.rockwell.com writes: >``Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir,'' a Vanity Fair excerpt from > Burrough's book of the same name, is in development at Universal, with >Will Smith attached to produce. This should worry NASA. ;) --part1_29.506b7a9.264de435_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (rly-yh04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.36]) by air-yh02.mail.aol.com (v73.12) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:13:02 -0400 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-yh04.mail.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:12:43 -0400 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id NAA23925; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:12:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Received: from mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.150) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma023694; Fri, 12 May 00 13:12:23 -0500 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10676; Fri, 12 May 2000 13:12:20 -0500 (CDT) To: Kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:06:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CollinsCRSMTP01/CedarRapids/Collins/Rockwell(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/12/2000 01:12:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Unknown ``Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir,'' a Vanity Fair excerpt from Burrough's book of the same name, is in development at Universal, with Will Smith attached to produce. --part1_29.506b7a9.264de435_boundary-- From VM Mon May 15 09:44:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["606" "Friday" "12" "May" "2000" "23:05:13" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume?" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil "starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume?" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 606 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4D520X20101 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 2000 22:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4D51uT20080 for ; Fri, 12 May 2000 22:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin55.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.55]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA10622; Fri, 12 May 2000 23:01:23 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <391CE288.372FF3A4@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i486) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: Kryswalker@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, jcavelos@mindspring.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, mdlynlv@pa.net, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, indy@the-line.com, alwermter@netzero.net Subject: Re: starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume? Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 23:05:13 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In case you were wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume. > Here's a good little web page, including reports from folks that had it > happen to them. One guy said the last thing he remembered before he passed > out was feeling the water on his tounge boil. > > Kelly > > In a message dated 5/12/00 8:47:32 AM, kgstarks@collins.rockwell.com writes: But from what air pressure to 0 psi. ? -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Wed May 17 10:14:56 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["564" "Wednesday" "17" "May" "2000" "00:24:31" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume?" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 564 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4H4PJL13754 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4H4PId13748 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 21:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.33.533cf1d (9491); Wed, 17 May 2000 00:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33.533cf1d.265378ff@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, jcavelos@mindspring.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, mdlynlv@pa.net, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, indy@the-line.com, alwermter@netzero.net Subject: Re: starship-design: wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume? Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:24:31 EDT In a message dated 5/13/00 12:01:59 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In case you were wondering what happens to folks exposed to hard vacume. >> Here's a good little web page, including reports from folks that had >it >> happen to them. One guy said the last thing he remembered before he >passed >> out was feeling the water on his tounge boil. >> >> Kelly >> >> In a message dated 5/12/00 8:47:32 AM, kgstarks@collins.rockwell.com >writes: > >But from what air pressure to 0 psi. ? Sea level, or in one case from 5psi => 0 From VM Fri May 26 17:17:21 2000 Content-Length: 5984 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5984" "Thursday" "25" "May" "2000" "17:27:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "129" "starship-design: Scientists propose sailing to the stars on solar wind" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5984 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4PMRws20989 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4PMRud20975 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 15:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p451.gnt.com [204.49.91.67]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA22207 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:48 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfc698$6bea2960$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Scientists propose sailing to the stars on solar wind Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:27:11 -0500 Scientists propose sailing to the stars on solar wind By Richard Stenger CNN Interactive Staff Writer (CNN) -- Four hundred years after Johannes Kepler suggested that ships might someday sail on "heavenly breezes" beyond the Earth, his dream is on the verge of becoming reality. Within the decade, NASA scientists think they can demonstrate a revolutionary propulsion system, an immense, super-lightweight sail that harnesses the power of solar photons to propel spacecraft faster and farther than ever. NASA thinks the technology could push an interstellar probe at five times the speed of current propulsion systems, meaning it could cover the distance between New York and Los Angeles in less than a minute. "This will be humankind's first planned venture outside the solar system," said Les Johnson, manager of Interstellar Propulsion Research at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Conventional spacecraft need too much fuel to push their own weight into interstellar space, but space sails require no fuel, except for the sun, he said. Searching for the heliopause A probe advancing past the edge of the solar system would give scientists a remarkable glimpse into the composition of the universe. "We hope to look at what the composition is beyond our solar system. All of our measurements are in some way part of our planetary system," said Paulett Liewer, a physicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, which is working with the Marshall center on interstellar probe research. Liewer and others want to search interstellar space for signs of organic matter and to study the interaction between interstellar space and the solar system. The Stardust probe earlier this year gathered samples of a thin interstellar dust stream drifting in the inner solar system. The preliminary data indicated the presence of complex carbon molecules. But the solar wind likely filters out the larger particles, meaning scientists can only guess how dense interstellar space is, according to Liewer. "We have no idea what the mass density is. That will be a big surprise," she said. The heliopause is the outermost boundary of the solar wind, where the interstellar medium restricts the outward flow of the solar wind. The space within the boundary of the heliopause, containing the sun and solar system, is referred to as the heliosphere. The exact location and shape of the heliopause is a mystery. Scientists think it is teardrop-shaped or roughly circular and exists some 90 to 120 astronomical units from the sun. The resilient Voyager probe passed the planets years ago and continues to beam back scientific information. But its instruments are not ideal for collecting the kind of data deep space scientists need, Johnson said. If NASA launched a probe with a solar sail in 2010, traveling at 150,000 mph (km/h), it would pass Voyager in 2018, despite the fact the latter would have had a 41-year head start. The spacecraft could travel more than 23 billion miles (37 billion km), or 250 astronomical units (AUs), said Johnson. In comparison, Neptune orbits the sun at about 30 AUs. One AU is 93 million miles (150 million km), the distance between the Earth and sun. It could extend far beyond the heliopause in 15 years, a definite plus for professional research. "Now if you launch with conventional propulsion, most of the scientists would be retired or dead" when such a probe reached its target distance, Johnson said. But event at such a vast range, the probe could beam back transmissions to Earth in several hours. Twice as large as the Superdome Solar sails would require a thinness that rivals cellophane, the strength to withstand intense solar heat and barrages of micrometeors, and an extremely large surface area: 440 yards (402 meters) wide, twice the diameter of the Louisiana Superdome. A highly reflective coating would harness the momentum of photons streaming from the sun. Constructing the sail is daunting but doable, NASA scientists said. Researchers believe they're close to breakthroughs with lightweight composites, including a carbon fiber material developed by Energy Science Laboratories in San Diego, California. Its density is the equivalent of a raisin flattened to 1 square yard (0.8 square meter), according to NASA. "It looks like it has the right thermal properties, so it can go near the sun and not overheat," Johnson said. To generate serious speed, a sail probe must first travel to the vicinity of the sun, where it juices up on solar photons. On its way out of the system, it would cast off the sail near Jupiter, where the stream of sun particles peters out. "All of the thrusting is in the inner solar system, then it coasts," said Johnson. Miles of sail squashed in tiny can Creating a solar sail is difficult enough, but hoisting it could prove an even greater feat. "I am confident that we can get the materials, but packaging and deployment will be the biggest nut to crack," Johnson said. One JPL scientist who studies advanced propulsion concepts describes the challenge ahead: "We have miles of sail, that must be squashed inside an itty bitty can and placed in a launch vehicle," Robert Frisbee said. Because of atmospheric drag, a NASA spacecraft would have to travel hundreds of miles from Earth before it could unfurl a solar sail, Frisbee said. Space scientists are considering several methods to deploy a giant sail, he said. One would be to fold it like a sheet of paper, then extend it out with mechanical booms. Another is using an inflatable structure, like a long balloon, that inflates with a tiny amount of gas and in so doing pulls out the sail. Decades after solar sails ply the celestial seas, they could rely on more than the sun for power, according to Johnson. Lasers or microwave beams, perhaps originating from satellites placed strategically around the solar system, could give spacecraft critical boosts on journeys to the stars. From VM Tue May 30 09:53:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["466" "Sunday" "28" "May" "2000" "09:16:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "starship-design: space propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 466 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4SFdk206621 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 08:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4SFdjd06616 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 08:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p436.gnt.com [204.49.91.52]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA18823 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 10:39:27 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bfc8ba$e3ed5f80$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: space propulsion Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 09:16:56 -0500 There is a good synopsis of current space propulsion research at: http://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm "Reaching for the stars Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft" This is from the 10th annual Advanced Propulsion Research Workshop. Lee "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson From VM Tue May 30 09:53:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1803" "Monday" "29" "May" "2000" "01:26:38" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: space propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1803 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4T5Qso15502 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4T5Qrd15497 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 22:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id z.4a.600d3d9 (6963) for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 01:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4a.600d3d9.2663598e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 102 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: space propulsion Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:26:38 EDT In a message dated 5/28/00 10:20:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP writes: In a message dated 5/28/00 8:41:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lparker@ cacaphony.net writes: > There is a good synopsis of current space propulsion research at: > > http://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm > > "Reaching for the stars > Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft" > > This is from the 10th annual Advanced Propulsion Research Workshop. Lee, An excellent link for checking out my competition. No worries yet. I do have a current credibility problem to work out as I incorrectly quoted a source claiming Einstein invented the atomic bomb. The source quote, however well intentioned and correct in the information provided was indeed fabricated. This was pointed out by Steve, I rechecked the quoted source and found it to be a mere fabrication though the details fabricated were correct but unsubstantiated by me to date. I am working on verifying it to this groups satisfaction. Steve is given my sincere apology. This group is given my thanks for not flaming my previous posts. Thanks for letting me speak my mind in a group thought of as quacks by a majority of main stream believers in star flight impossibility. Thanks for speaking forcefully requiring me to recheck my sources before publishing in a larger public forum. Your peer review has been invaluable. Keep up the good work. Regards, Tom Jackson Plasma Rocket Engine A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power MATH PROOFS From VM Tue May 30 16:05:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2583" "Tuesday" "30" "May" "2000" "18:57:56" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: space propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2583 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4UMwfN27799 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e4UMweJ27791 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id 4.39.5b96c63 (3976); Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39.5b96c63.2665a174@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 102 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: space propulsion Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:57:56 EDT In a message dated 5/28/00 8:41:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > There is a good synopsis of current space propulsion research at: > > http://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm > > "Reaching for the stars > Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft" > > This is from the 10th annual Advanced Propulsion Research Workshop. > > Lee Here is a more interactive detailed link: http://sec353.jpl.nasa.gov/apc/index.html Partial quote---- FISSION-FRAGMENT PROPULSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Nuclear fission has an energy density of 8 x 1013 J/kg as compared to chemical reactions with an energy density of 1 x 107 J/kg. This high energy density make fission appealing for propulsion. However, most fission propulsion concepts use energy from a fission reactor to heat a propellant "working fluid" gas (e.g., hydrogen) which then expands through a nozzle to produce thrust. Ultimately, engine materials structural temperature limits restrict these systems to specific impulses of less than 7,000 lbf-s/lbm. Fission-fragment propulsion involves permitting the energetic fragments produced in the nuclear fission process to directly escape from the reactor; thus, the fission fragments, moving with a velocity of several percent of the speed of light, are the propellant working fluid. Because these fragments are heavily ionized, they can be directed by magnetic fields to produce thrust for propulsion. Specific impulse in excess of 1 million lbf-s/lbm is possible ------- end quote Makes me wish I knew how to calculate the specific impulse for my engine ;=) I found the above link from http://www.alcyone.com/max/links/science.html A personal page of a space buff with loads of related links. I wouldn't mind him joining this group. My star ship site got hit with 800 hits in two days with no advertising. I found my site linked in Crank Dot Net | science http://www.crank.net/science.html along with Nasa's advanced propulsion system site. One labeled crankish and the other labeled illucid by the submitter. Oh well ;) Bad publicity and good company is better than none. Tom A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power Plasma Rocket Engine CyberSpace Star Ship From VM Thu Jun 1 15:25:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1152" "Thursday" "1" "June" "2000" "18:14:05" "-0400" "Matthew_L._Nelson@who.eop.gov" "Matthew_L._Nelson@who.eop.gov" nil "21" "starship-design: Exciting White House Event! Register Today! Exploring the Far Frontiers of Sea and Space" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1152 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e51MMCm24635 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e51MMBH24628 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eop2.eop.gov (eop253.eop.gov [198.137.241.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e51MEkJ19820 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub1.eop.gov ([198.137.241.4]) by EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.2-33 #41140) with ESMTP id <01JQ3JEBRBLO8WXUSD@EOP.GOV> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:14:19 EST Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by mhub.eop.gov (PMDF V5.2-32 #34437) id <01JQ3JEBDB4W8YA3K8@mhub.eop.gov> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from lngate.eop.gov ([165.119.3.231]) by mhub.eop.gov (PMDF V5.2-32 #34437) with SMTP id <01JQ3JEB1E5C8X2G00@mhub.eop.gov> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by lngate.eop.gov(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 852568F1.007A284D ; Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:14:17 -0400 Message-id: <852568F1.0079C453.00@lngate.eop.gov> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Lotus-FromDomain: EOP Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Matthew_L._Nelson@who.eop.gov From: Matthew_L._Nelson@who.eop.gov Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Exciting White House Event! Register Today! Exploring the Far Frontiers of Sea and Space Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:14:05 -0400 http://www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/Millennium/evenings.html Exploration of the frontiers of discovery - deep sea and outer space - is the topic of the ninth in the series of Millennium Evenings at the White House. Titled "Under the Sea, Beyond the Stars," the President and First Lady will host this special afternoon broadcast featuring renowned scientists Marcia McNutt, marine geophysicist from the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Institute, and Neil Tyson, astrophysicist at the Hayden Planetarium in New York City. This event will be available to viewers around the country by Internet cybercast and satellite broadcast on June 12, 2000, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. To learn more about watching this event, or how to host a downlink site in your community or school, go to the White House Millennium Council website at www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/Millennium/evenings.html. Viewers will also be invited to email questions to the presenters both in advance and during the event itself. Information will be updated as the event approaches. Help spread the word. Email this messager to your colleagues, friends and family today! From VM Tue Jun 13 09:32:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2076" "Tuesday" "13" "June" "2000" "00:24:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "98" "starship-design: Re: Your site has been added to my directory of Space Links" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2076 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5D4Orx28858 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5D4OqJ28853 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id 1.99.6112f4a (3318); Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <99.6112f4a.26771181@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: info@universetoday.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Your site has been added to my directory of Space Links Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:24:33 EDT Thanks for linking to us. I'm not the web master, and don't have account access. So I can't add a link to you, or even fix problems on the site. I wouldn't classify the site under the category of Moon. The starship design section was the most popular and grew to be the most sizable. Kelly Starks In a message dated 6/12/00 10:53:46 PM, info@universetoday.com writes: >I've had a look at your website and decided to add it to the space link > >directory on Universe Today: (http://www.universetoday.com). UT contains > >space exploration and astronomy news, which I update every weekday. My >goal > >with this project is to build a comprehensive directory of space links >for > >educators, students and space buffs. Comprehensive and accurate - and that's > >where I need your help. > > > >Here's how I categorized your site: > > > >Title: "Lunar Institute of Technology" > >Title: "http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar" > > > >Category: "Moon" > > > >To review your listing, go to: > > > >http://www.universetoday.com/html/directory/ > > > >Then choose "Moon" from the list of categories. I'm trying to make the > >directory as accurate as possible, so please make sure that the URL and > >title are correct. Please also let me know if this is the appropriate email > >address to contact you at (KellySt@aol.com). > > > >Take care, > > > >Fraser Cain > >Publisher > >Universe Today > > > >P.S. Would you like a more prominent listing in the directory? If you link > >to Universe Today, I'll put your site at the top of the directory page >and > >add the description you provide. Simply click the following link and fill > >out the form on the page. > > > >http://www.universetoday.com/html/directory/partner.html > > > >P.P.S. Please accept my apologies if you've received this email twice, >or in > >error. I often find that several sites are run by a single webmaster, or > >sometimes listed under multiple URLs, and I have trouble figuring out the > >relationship between the sites. It's also possible, though, that I'm a > >little dazed from finding all these links. From VM Thu Jun 15 14:32:32 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3182" "Thursday" "15" "June" "2000" "17:29:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "248" "starship-design: Re: Your site has been added to my directory of Space Links" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3182 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5FLTjV04473 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5FLTih04466 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id 1.7d.64a6ba8 (4309); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.64a6ba8.267aa4b8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: info@universetoday.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Your site has been added to my directory of Space Links Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:29:28 EDT Sounds good to me. Thanks for the interest. Kelly In a message dated 6/15/00 3:49:26 AM, info@universetoday.com writes: >Okay, thanks for getting back to me. Why don't I put your site under "Space > >Societies" instead. I see that you have a new URL as well. > > > >Let me know if that works. > > > >Fraser > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:25 PM > >> To: info@universetoday.com; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: Re: Your site has been added to my directory of Space Links > >> > >> > >> Thanks for linking to us. I'm not the web master, and don't have account > >> access. So I can't add a link to you, or even fix problems on the site. > >> > >> I wouldn't classify the site under the category of Moon. The > >> starship design > >> section was the most popular and grew to be the most sizable. > >> > >> Kelly Starks > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 6/12/00 10:53:46 PM, info@universetoday.com writes: > >> > >> >I've had a look at your website and decided to add it to the space link > >> > > >> >directory on Universe Today: (http://www.universetoday.com). UT contains > >> > > >> >space exploration and astronomy news, which I update every weekday. >My > >> >goal > >> > > >> >with this project is to build a comprehensive directory of space links > >> >for > >> > > >> >educators, students and space buffs. Comprehensive and accurate > >> - and that's > >> > > >> >where I need your help. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Here's how I categorized your site: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Title: "Lunar Institute of Technology" > >> > > >> >Title: "http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Category: "Moon" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >To review your listing, go to: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >http://www.universetoday.com/html/directory/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Then choose "Moon" from the list of categories. I'm trying to make the > >> > > >> >directory as accurate as possible, so please make sure that the URL >and > >> > > >> >title are correct. Please also let me know if this is the > >> appropriate email > >> > > >> >address to contact you at (KellySt@aol.com). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Take care, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Fraser Cain > >> > > >> >Publisher > >> > > >> >Universe Today > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >P.S. Would you like a more prominent listing in the directory? > >> If you link > >> > > >> >to Universe Today, I'll put your site at the top of the directory page > >> >and > >> > > >> >add the description you provide. Simply click the following link and >fill > >> > > >> >out the form on the page. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >http://www.universetoday.com/html/directory/partner.html > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >P.P.S. Please accept my apologies if you've received this email twice, > >> >or in > >> > > >> >error. I often find that several sites are run by a single webmaster, >or > >> > > >> >sometimes listed under multiple URLs, and I have trouble figuring out >the > >> > > >> >relationship between the sites. It's also possible, though, that I'm >a > >> > > >> >little dazed from finding all these links. > >> From VM Fri Jun 16 13:49:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["986" "Friday" "16" "June" "2000" "15:36:38" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "31" "starship-design: [Fwd: The Incredible Ions of Space Transportation]" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 986 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5GJdc905917 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GJdbh05912 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.123.234]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000616193931.UPUU9011.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:39:31 +0000 Message-ID: <394A81C6.59AAAD76@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: [Fwd: The Incredible Ions of Space Transportation] Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:36:38 -0400 I thought you'd get a charge out of this . . . ;-) NASA Science News wrote: > NASA Science News for June 16, 2000 > > After nearly 40 years of development and the successful flight of > Deep Space 1 in 1998-1999, ion propulsion has now entered the > mainstream of propulsion options available for deep-space > missions. FULL STORY at > > http://spacescience.com/headlines/y2000/ast15jun_1.htm?list > __ > You are subscribed to Science.NASA.gov NASA Science News mailing list > with the address clmanges@WORLDNET.ATT.NET. > > This is a free service. > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, or CHANGE your address on this service, go to > > http://science.nasa.gov/news/subscribe.asp?e=clmanges@WORLDNET.ATT.NET > > or you unsubscribe via e-mail by sending a message from this account to > > mailto:SNGList-signoff-request@snglist.msfc.nasa.gov > > If you need to get in touch with us directly, please go to > > http://science.nasa.gov/comments > > Home page: http://science.nasa.gov/ From VM Fri Jun 16 21:22:41 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4424" "Friday" "16" "June" "2000" "17:51:05" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "102" "starship-design: Plasma power could usher in human travel to Mars" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Plasma power could usher in human travel to Mars" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4424 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5GMqHc22863 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5GMqGh22854 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p462.gnt.com [204.49.91.78]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA30217 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:52:10 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Plasma power could usher in human travel to Mars Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:51:05 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Plasma power could usher in human travel to Mars June 15, 2000 Web posted at: 12:17 PM EDT (1617 GMT) In this story: Most of cosmos a plasma soup Magnets to control unruly fuel RELATED STORIES, SITES By Richard Stenger CNN Interactive Staff Writer (CNN) -- A rocket fueled by what some scientists consider a fourth state of matter could boost payload capacity and slash travel time to Mars, according to NASA, which agreed this week to work with a Montana company to develop the advanced technology. Rockets powered by electrically charged plasma gas could carry a cargo of more than 100 tons and reach the red planet in only three months, NASA said. A mission fueled by a conventional chemical rocket would require at least eight months to reach Mars. The shorter trip would reduce astronaut exposure to deadly space radiation, and possibly minimize biological changes associated with weightlessness, like bone and muscle deterioration and circulatory changes, "We don't want to spend a lot of traveling from point A to point B in space. We want to make that trip very fast," said Franklin Chang-Diaz, the director of plasma propulsion research at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. Chang-Diaz said plasma could serve as rocket fuel within the decade and that NASA could conduct an orbital test flight as early as 2004. "We'd take it out for a spin and see how it works," the former astronaut told a news conference Wednesday. The NASA lab will collaborate with MSE Technology Applications in Butte, Montana, to develop the advanced propulsion technology, according to the agreement announced Tuesday. The Montana team is involved in simulating the effects of plasma propulsion. "We have to use computer models before we actually cut metal to do tests," Chang-Diaz said. Most of cosmos a plasma soup When a gas is heated to tens of thousands or millions of degrees, atoms lose their electrons. The result is a "soup" of charged particles, or plasma, made up of negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Plasma occurs commonly in nature. In fact, most matter in the universe is in the plasma state, including stars, nebulas and, closer to home, lightning and extremely hot flames. No known material can contain the hot plasmas necessary for rocket propulsion, but specially designed magnetic fields can. Such magnetic fields are integral to the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), a concept designed by Chang-Diaz over three decades of research. Magnets to control unruly fuel The VASIMR engine consists of three linked magnetic cells. In the first, a propellant gas, like hydrogen, is injected and ionized. The second use radio waves to heat up the plasma more, sort of like a microwave oven. And the third, a magnetic nozzle, converts the energy into a directed flow. On a mission to Mars, a plasma rocket would continuously accelerate through the first half of its voyage, then reverse and slow down during the second half. Therefore, a key to the technology is the ability to vary the plasma exhaust. "That's important because there are portions of the mission that require high thrust. And other times that require high efficiency," said Dave Micheletti, manager of MSE's advanced energy and aerospace program. The propulsion system would create very low artificial gravity, which some scientists have theorized could offset the biological hazards of space travel. Yet the gravity would only be about one-thousandth as strong as that of the Earth, said Chang-Diaz. "We don't know the thresholds of beneficial gravity. That's one of the things that our medical researchers are still trying to pin down," he said. In the future, when plasma powered ships become much faster, gravity levels would go way up, he added. Chang-Diaz said his lab and related NASA centers spend only several million dollars a year on plasma research. "That's nothing near a major enterprise. We need to ramp up development" if NASA decides to move forward with plasma propulsion, he said. "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOUqvWURr4uG2f+/WEQJr+ACgn2Qe1g/PY9W/oVdAgDXcX/ZspJ0AoKdn LfR3+i92tjD8VWmm1jwcZikb =HBSs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Wed Jun 21 09:03:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8656" "Wednesday" "21" "June" "2000" "05:26:24" "-0500" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "141" "starship-design: Starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8656 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5LAOjL29853 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.nternet.com (IDENT:qmailr@eagle.nternet.com [208.60.58.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e5LAOhh29847 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 03:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19228 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 10:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phrenzy) (208.61.104.240) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 10:22:48 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Johnny Thunderbird" From: "Johnny Thunderbird" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Starship-design: Plasma power Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 05:26:24 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Parker" To: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: starship-design: Plasma power could usher in human travel to Mars I can't remember whether I posted my latest and greatest launch vehicle combo here, but I agree with this post that for inner-system work, the MPD (magnetoplasmadynamic) arcjet is certainly the way to go. The citation brings in an intermediate stage in the engine, of RF excitation between the arc and the clamping magnetic field which forms the "nozzle" of the MPD arcjet. I have to express my preliminary approval of this addition; in fact, I was just looking for a way to allow a greater degree of electrical excitation of the plasma before its expulsion. For real legs, working in the outer system and beyond, I lean toward using a linac as main propulsion, so you can really show your exhaust particles which way to the back door and boot the bastards out. Here is a wrap of my launch scheme, which I have held stable for nearly a year, so I must have have said it here sometime. Oh well, maybe not everybody took it seriously. Pardon the past tense, due to a hopeful fictionalization. Propulsion in space was no longer a matter of the amount of fuel and oxidizer carried, but the amount of electricity available to boost the reaction mass, since the vehicle did not rely on chemical rocket engines to provide acceleration in space. Instead, the fuel for space maneuvering was entirely hydrogen, without an oxidant. The fuel was energized by a steady electric arc, and squirted out through a coil providing an intense magnetic field to collimate the exhaust plasma. The acceleration was determined not so much by the amount of fuel exhausted, but by its velocity, which was a function of the electrical energy it gained in the arc, not by chemical recombination. The hydrogen of the jet was highly ionized, so was tightly constrained to spiral the magnetic lines of force supplied by the coil, so tended to go straight back, rather than expanding in a cloud like ordinary escaping gas. The space drive was called a magnetoplasmadynamic arcjet, MPD arcjet for short, and was many times more efficient than rocket propulsion. That meant very little hydrogen need be released at a time, to maintain thrust, so fuel was conserved to allow space journeys on constant thrust, rather than periodic episodes of acceleration, punctuating long weightless periods of drifting in gravitational fields. Zero-G, or microgravity, was thereby avoided, with its manifold detrimental health effects on all organisms. A further benefit was that space travel took less time than it might have using chemical rocketry. In space, as in computation, speed was of the essence. The power rings were of overstressed, defect-free steel, rotating at speeds well past their normal bursting point. These rings rotated within toroidal superconducting coils which produced extremely strong magnetic fields. The fields produced within these coils clamped implacably down on the granular structure of the steel, simply not permitting the metal to burst and fly apart, even far over the stress which would normally snap it under tension. Such overstressed steel rings had but one failure mode, namely a planar explosion of iron vapor, expanding outward from the center of rotation at extreme velocity. So long as the field windings held the crystalline structure of the steel tightly in compression, this failure could not occur, so the flywheel formed by the spinning steel ring could store electromechanical energy. Energy could be tapped at will, in the form of electric direct current, and used to maintain the arc of the drive. As power was drawn from a ring, the magnetic field strength was reduced as rotation slowed. When the speed went below the normal bursting point for non-magnetized steel, the flywheel was declared to be operating in safe mode, though its rotation still stored a great amount of energy. Then the rupture of the coil would no longer produce the fearful slicing explosion of instantly vaporized steel which so worried any neighbors, but the more normal type of flywheel explosion was still a factor to be considered, until the ring's rotation was stilled. The overstressed steel ring flywheels provided a greater energy density than any other form of battery, enough to power space flight. The launch sequence was totally unlike any space launch visualized in earlier centuries. Informally, the launch vehicle was considered to be shot out of a hypervelocity gun at twelve miles altitude, but that concept was only a very inaccurate portrayal of a small part of the launch. The launch vessel was sealed within a long sleeve, of nitrocellulose fabric and film, inflated with hydrogen. The sleeve was within a tube which runs the length of the launch airship, also hydrogen filled. At launch time, air enriched with ozone was driven in through the rear of the tube, igniting the hydrogen within the tube and driving the sleeve forward, with its contained launch vehicle. Overpressure in advance of the moving sleeve burst the front seal of the tube, and the pressurized sleeve with the launch vehicle within it left the tube in the launch airship in a puff of hydrogen, followed by burning hydrogen. Only outside the airship does the flame catch up to the back of the inflated nitrocellulose sleeve, initiating the detonation of the guncotton material. Starting from the rear, the sleeve implodes on the hydrogen it contains, squeezing it to the center and forward. This creates a hypersonic shock tube, which drives a bolus of hydrogen forward, containing the launch vehicle, at high speed. The jet of the launch vehicle is now burning, and it ignites any free hydrogen mixed with air in its wake. When the vehicle attains hypersonic speed, its bow shock wave contributes this ignition function. But in synchrony with this space launch, other shock tubes of hydrogen had burst along the projected path of the launch vehicle, so its flight path was enriched in unburned hydrogen. The launch vehicle engine was adaptive to rapid variations in oxidizing and reducing ambient, so when it encountered a patch of hydrogen, it expelled mainly oxygen, but in plain oxidizing air it threw off a hydrogen-rich jet. In this way, the maximum chemical recombination was assured in the exhaust jet, and all this burning contributed to acceleration of the launch vehicle, by overpressure on the shock cone. ____________________ As I have said before, I like fusion to occur, not within the structure of a starship, but within the exhaust jet. Also, I like the proton-boron reaction because no neutrons are produced, which makes it clean, the kind of fusion reaction you might want to have in your neighborhood. Boron furthermore is cheaper than deuterium, much less tritium, and protons are a dime a dozen. In other words, a boron enrichment of the exhaust gas, perhaps by making boron a component of your anode to strike your arc for the arcjet, would make fine fat targets (measured in barns) for the beam of your proton linac. Smite the boron nuclei which hang around lazily in your exhaust jet with some really energetic protons out of the proton linac, and you obtain clean fusion. This may or may not catalyze proton-proton reactions, but either way it's an energy bonus. I have figured that fusion in the exhaust jet will indeed contribute to the acceleration of the starship. The analogy is of the hypersonic shock cone which forms the outer boundary of an external combustion SCRAMJET (supersonic combustion ramjet), which I also calculated that reactions in the exhaust jet will accelerate the vehicle. For the external combustion SCRAMJET to work, basically all you have to do is dump the fuel overboard, and it will burn sho' nuff, and it will push you forward sho' nuff. In both cases, the vehicle at the apex of the cone will be accelerated by any explosive reactions in its wake, because of overpressure acting on the surface of the cone. In the case of a relativistic starship, the cone is not an acoustic discontinuity, but the cone of causation caused by the limited velocity of light. Fusion in your jet, although it may be furlongs behind your actual solid starship, will emit photons to impinge upon this cone of causation, and there's got to be a push. Sure, go ahead with the quibbles, I'll be glad to argue that, because it's gonna happen. See ya, Johnny Thunderbird Climate Catastrophe: http://personal.msy.bellsouth.net/~bugzappr heavyLight Books: http://www.geocities.com/jthunderbird From VM Wed Jun 21 09:03:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2352" "Monday" "19" "June" "2000" "21:46:51" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2352 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5LG1kO11737 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5LG1ih11724 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin41.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.41]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05206 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:01:41 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Starship-design: Plasma power Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:46:51 +0000 Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > Propulsion in space was no longer a matter of the amount of fuel and > oxidizer carried, but the amount of electricity available to boost the > reaction mass, since the vehicle did not rely on chemical rocket engines to > provide acceleration in space. The real limiting is the fact that one still has to rely on chemical boosters to LEO, Heat to dissipate from engines, and the power unit can't be easily separated from trust unit ie: beamed energy. PS. I think it about 30 watts per ISP unit of energy needed at 100% effecentcy. > The launch sequence was totally unlike any space launch visualized in > earlier centuries. Informally, the launch vehicle was considered to be shot > out of a hypervelocity gun at twelve miles altitude, but that concept was > only a very inaccurate portrayal of a small part of the launch. The launch > vessel was sealed within a long sleeve, of nitrocellulose fabric and film, > inflated with hydrogen. Never work in practice because the risk of loss do to a accident is too high. The trouble with space travel every body thinks bigger is better but is not. > As I have said before, I like fusion to occur, not within the structure of a > starship, but within the exhaust jet. Also, I like the proton-boron reaction > because no neutrons are produced, which makes it clean, the kind of fusion > reaction you might want to have in your neighborhood. Boron furthermore is > cheaper than deuterium, much less tritium, and protons are a dime a dozen. > In other words, a boron enrichment of the exhaust gas, perhaps by making > boron a component of your anode to strike your arc for the arcjet, would > make fine fat targets (measured in barns) for the beam of your proton linac. > Smite the boron nuclei which hang around lazily in your exhaust jet with > some really energetic protons out of the proton linac, and you obtain clean > fusion. This may or may not catalyze proton-proton reactions, but either way > it's an energy bonus. I like it boron reactions better too, but lets first get deuterium burning. Now if you want to study fusion better try this link. http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Wed Jun 21 16:08:47 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1961" "Wednesday" "21" "June" "2000" "17:47:00" "-0500" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "45" "starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1961 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5LMjQ017086 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.nternet.com (IDENT:qmailr@eagle.nternet.com [208.60.58.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e5LMjPh17073 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3346 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2000 22:43:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phrenzy) (208.61.104.240) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2000 22:43:25 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Johnny Thunderbird" From: "Johnny Thunderbird" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ben Franchuk" Cc: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:47:00 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Franchuk" Cc: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:46 PM Subject: Re: starship-design: Starship-design: Plasma power > Johnny Thunderbird wrote: energetic protons out of the proton linac, and you obtain clean > > fusion. This may or may not catalyze proton-proton reactions, but either way > > it's an energy bonus. > > I like it boron reactions better too, but lets first get deuterium > burning. Now if you want to study fusion better try this link. > http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html Folks are too worried about making a static sort of fusion reaction, contained in a can so they know just where it's happening. The number one fact about space is that there's plenty of room. That means you can use accelerators to produce fusion, which is easy, rather than try to compress, contain and confine an energetic plasma, which is hard. Using particle accelerators is the only way we know that these reactions happen, and these fusions have been done in detail, decades ago, in the energetic beams of accelerators. Fusion research on Earth is concentrated on making it happen in a can, and that's hard. To use fusion for space drives, we can use the well-known accelerator research, because we don't mind if our entire reaction is going thataway real fast, because that is just what we want to do: our entire purpose is to make it go thataway real fast. In that aspect, all Earthbound fusion power projects are false leads, and trying to pursue the ephemeral deuterium-tritium reaction, in particular, is a big red herring. To make a fusion space drive, all we need is the mature and well-studied technology of fusion induced by beams from accelerators. How long can a linac (linear accelerator) be in space? There's plenty of room, right? On redirect, Johnny Thunderbird http://members.100free.com/users/jthunderbird From VM Wed Jun 21 16:21:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2518" "Wednesday" "21" "June" "2000" "16:20:16" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "40" "starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2518 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5LNJtj01453 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@[206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5LNJsh01447 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5LNJPN29767 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5LNKKn03832; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:20:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14673.19888.939403.212029@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Johnny Thunderbird writes: > Folks are too worried about making a static sort of fusion reaction, > contained in a can so they know just where it's happening. The number one > fact about space is that there's plenty of room. That means you can use > accelerators to produce fusion, which is easy, rather than try to compress, > contain and confine an energetic plasma, which is hard. Using particle > accelerators is the only way we know that these reactions happen, and these > fusions have been done in detail, decades ago, in the energetic beams of > accelerators. Fusion research on Earth is concentrated on making it happen > in a can, and that's hard. To use fusion for space drives, we can use the > well-known accelerator research, because we don't mind if our entire > reaction is going thataway real fast, because that is just what we want to > do: our entire purpose is to make it go thataway real fast. > > In that aspect, all Earthbound fusion power projects are false leads, and > trying to pursue the ephemeral deuterium-tritium reaction, in particular, is > a big red herring. To make a fusion space drive, all we need is the mature > and well-studied technology of fusion induced by beams from accelerators. > > How long can a linac (linear accelerator) be in space? There's plenty of > room, right? I find that a deeply strange perspective, given that the idea of "fusion in a can", as you call it, is to produce the temperatures and pressures needed to make fusion efficient, or even possible. The amount of fusion you can get in an environment where you can't even keep the atoms close together is going to be rather small. Physically I don't see any way for you to reliably get a high proportion of atoms fused out in some diffuse tail of gas that you're bombarding with other atoms. Also, if your idea is to essentially throw some hydrogen out the back slowly and then throw more out the back very, very quickly in the hopes it will fuse with the hydrogen you dumped earlier, then the problem is that the fusion doesn't happen in a place where you can get thrust from it. If you hold a stick of dynamite against the back of your car and detonate it, it will push the car forward (how to avoid blowing the back of your car off is left as an exercise for the reader :-). If you drop a stick of dynamite on the road behind you and set it off after it's fallen away, it won't push on your car much at all. Your concept is much like the latter car-and-dynamite situation. From VM Thu Jun 22 09:18:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2381" "Tuesday" "20" "June" "2000" "00:49:11" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2381 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5M0VuU00466 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5M0Vth00455 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin39.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.39]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA29625; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:31:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <394EBF87.5ABEA776@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Johnny Thunderbird CC: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:49:11 +0000 Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > > Folks are too worried about making a static sort of fusion reaction, > contained in a can so they know just where it's happening. The number one > fact about space is that there's plenty of room. That means you can use > accelerators to produce fusion, which is easy, rather than try to compress, > contain and confine an energetic plasma, which is hard. Using particle > accelerators is the only way we know that these reactions happen, and these > fusions have been done in detail, decades ago, in the energetic beams of > accelerators. Fusion research on Earth is concentrated on making it happen > in a can, and that's hard. To use fusion for space drives, we can use the > well-known accelerator research, because we don't mind if our entire > reaction is going thataway real fast, because that is just what we want to > do: our entire purpose is to make it go thataway real fast. You still have to contain the reaction on earth or in space. Note you could have a hole at one end in a space reactor for direct thrust but you need to have the plasma still burn. > In that aspect, all Earthbound fusion power projects are false leads, and > trying to pursue the ephemeral deuterium-tritium reaction, in particular, is > a big red herring. To make a fusion space drive, all we need is the mature > and well-studied technology of fusion induced by beams from accelerators. > Why is deuterium a red herring, I think some devices fusion only needs a factor of 100x improvement to be practical. Note fusion web sites have been rather outdated for a while. > > How long can a linac (linear accelerator) be in space? There's plenty of > room, right? > Ummm 16 feet ... thats all the room I have in my garage to build the sucker :) I think a linac needs to 1/3 of a mile long, but that information is from memory from a Scientific American in the 70's? Linacs I think use heavy magnets too. The Best fusion reactor is the Electro static confinement devices for space like the ones designed at "starships-design" home page or at http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html. > On redirect, > Johnny Thunderbird > http://members.100free.com/users/jthunderbird -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Thu Jun 22 09:18:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["977" "Tuesday" "20" "June" "2000" "00:53:46" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 977 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5M0aUZ01786 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5M0aFh01745 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin39.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.39]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA29972 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:36:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <394EC09A.A565953C@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <14673.19888.939403.212029@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:53:46 +0000 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Also, if your idea is to essentially throw some hydrogen out the back > slowly and then throw more out the back very, very quickly in the hopes > it will fuse with the hydrogen you dumped earlier, then the problem is > that the fusion doesn't happen in a place where you can get thrust from > it. If you hold a stick of dynamite against the back of your car and > detonate it, it will push the car forward (how to avoid blowing the back > of your car off is left as an exercise for the reader :-). If you drop > a stick of dynamite on the road behind you and set it off after it's > fallen away, it won't push on your car much at all. Your concept is > much like the latter car-and-dynamite I think exploding small atomic bombs for thust is the car-and-dynamite situation.. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Thu Jun 22 14:38:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5362" "Thursday" "22" "June" "2000" "15:57:47" "-0500" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "94" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5362 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5MKwJZ23696 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.nternet.com (IDENT:qmailr@eagle.nternet.com [208.60.58.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e5MKwIh23690 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26369 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 20:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phrenzy) (208.60.58.59) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 20:56:06 -0000 Message-ID: <001f01bfdc8c$c1000780$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword><000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy><394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca><000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <14673.19888.939403.212029@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Johnny Thunderbird" From: "Johnny Thunderbird" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Steve VanDevender" , Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:57:47 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve VanDevender" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 6:20 PM Subject: starship-design: Plasma power > Johnny Thunderbird writes: > > Folks are too worried about making a static sort of fusion reaction, To make a fusion space drive, all we need is the mature > > and well-studied technology of fusion induced by beams from accelerators. > > > > How long can a linac (linear accelerator) be in space? There's plenty of > > room, right? > > I find that a deeply strange perspective, given that the idea of "fusion > in a can", as you call it, is to produce the temperatures and pressures > needed to make fusion efficient, or even possible. The amount of fusion > you can get in an environment where you can't even keep the atoms close > together is going to be rather small. Physically I don't see any way > for you to reliably get a high proportion of atoms fused out in some > diffuse tail of gas that you're bombarding with other atoms. > In the context, which is of an MPD arcjet with boron enrichment from the anode which strikes the arc, we are not speaking strictly of a "diffuse tail of gas" in the jet, for the purpose of the final or "nozzle" magnetic coil is to collimate the exhaust ions, restricting their flow to a relatively narrow column in the wake. The fraction of the exhaust plasma which is neutral gas, will of course tend to escape this organized column, in diffuse fashion by thermal motion. But thermal motion is very, very slow as seen by a beam of relativistic protons, so even the hot neutral gases won't get far from the central jet target zone without getting bashed. Many of them, anyway. Our plasma is cold, it is positively frozen, when the beam from the accelerator comes along. We need to take account of the scaling factors in speed, contrasting the thermal motions we normally think of as pretty speedy, with particles accelerated to within a gnat's ass of C. Convert from keV to Kelvins, that's your comparison. In the case of the ions, they are constrained to spiral tightly around the magnetic field lines, at their cyclotron frequency, and they won't be doing any wandering. They will stay where they're stuck magnetically, while they are bombarded by this beam of _relativistic_ protons. The fast things here are the fusion products, and the impingent beam. The slow things are the neutral exhaust gases and the ions pinned on their helical tracks, which might as well be encased in a block of ice by comparison. Temperature and pressure are not prime requisites for the fusion of nuclei bombarded by a particle beam; in fact, temperature is completely irrelevant, as we have seen, and pressure is derived from temperature, so all we really need talk about is density. Specifically, the fusion will be self-sustaining at a high enough density of the target particles; but what need have we for a chain reaction? We're building neither a bomb nor a power plant, but an ephemeral structure of high energy in deep space. So most of our protons missed, should we care? We have plenty more protons to toss. The fact that we have projected them out into cold space, at the highest possible velocity, means we have derived the maximum thrust obtainable from their mass. Going for fusion as well, we are reaching for a bonus. > Also, if your idea is to essentially throw some hydrogen out the back > slowly and then throw more out the back very, very quickly in the hopes > it will fuse with the hydrogen you dumped earlier, then the problem is > that the fusion doesn't happen in a place where you can get thrust from > it. If you hold a stick of dynamite against the back of your car and > detonate it, it will push the car forward (how to avoid blowing the back > of your car off is left as an exercise for the reader :-). If you drop > a stick of dynamite on the road behind you and set it off after it's > fallen away, it won't push on your car much at all. Your concept is > much like the latter car-and-dynamite situation. The imagery evokes the old NASA fission-bomb propulsion proposal, a dreadful pulsating drive. Your point is actually that the ship, in front, subtends a solid arc which rapidly decreases as the energetic reaction gets farther behind into the jet, which is of course quite valid. The efficiency of the thrust produced on the ship is vastly decreased for an explosive reaction far behind the ship. Yet there are cases which decrease the weight of this objection. Starship designs which have been lately in my consideration, all have in common a magnetic presence which is effectively many times the size of the solid portion of the ship, and would effectively provide a much greater cross-section to intercept the forces produced by trailing energetic reactions. The particular implementation we consider here, using an MPD arcjet, has such a built-in magnetic field. It's easier to believe that a fusion reaction behind the ship would tend to nudge it forward, than to believe that it wouldn't. Again, this fusion is sought as a bonus, for we have already made optimum use of two of the most efficient propulsion techniques we can conceive, the MPD arcjet and the pure thrust of the relativistic particle beam. Why haggle over the efficiency of the auxiliary? Serenely, Johnny Thunderbird From VM Thu Jun 22 14:55:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4108" "Thursday" "22" "June" "2000" "16:50:13" "-0500" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "90" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4108 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5MLra221762 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.nternet.com (IDENT:qmailr@eagle.nternet.com [208.60.58.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e5MLrZh21750 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27962 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 21:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phrenzy) (208.60.58.49) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 21:51:32 -0000 Message-ID: <002b01bfdc94$7f4bae40$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394EBF87.5ABEA776@jetnet.ab.ca> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Johnny Thunderbird" From: "Johnny Thunderbird" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Ben Franchuk" Cc: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:50:13 -0500 Hiya Ben, > Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > > > > Folks are too worried about making a static sort of fusion reaction, > > contained in a can so they know just where it's happening. The number one > > fact about space is that there's plenty of room. That means you can use > > accelerators to produce fusion, which is easy, rather than try to compress, > > contain and confine an energetic plasma, which is hard. Using particle > > accelerators is the only way we know that these reactions happen, and these > > fusions have been done in detail, decades ago, in the energetic beams of > > accelerators. Fusion research on Earth is concentrated on making it happen > > in a can, and that's hard. To use fusion for space drives, we can use the > > well-known accelerator research, because we don't mind if our entire > > reaction is going thataway real fast, because that is just what we want to > > do: our entire purpose is to make it go thataway real fast. > > > You still have to contain the reaction on earth or in space. > Note you could have a hole at one end in a space reactor for direct > thrust but you need to have the plasma still burn. The _magnetic bottle_ , Ben. Take the can away from the outside, we're in a fine high vacuum in space. Magnetic fields don't mean heavy steel magnets. If we're really, really good at this kind of design, magnetic fields might not even mean copper wire coils, they might not not even mean superconductive ceramic wire coils, they might just mean dynamically confined orbits of charged particles. > Why is deuterium a red herring, I think some devices fusion only needs > a factor of 100x improvement to be practical. Note fusion web sites have been > rather outdated for a while. I started looking at designs for fusion power in 1966, and I haven't had to refresh my reading of the primary design concepts very much since. Still the front runner, the tokamak hasn't had much change over the last 34 years. That's boring science. Only the maverick designs have any interest to them at all. > > How long can a linac (linear accelerator) be in space? There's plenty of > > room, right? > > > > Ummm 16 feet ... thats all the room I have in my garage to build the sucker :) > I think a linac needs to 1/3 of a mile long, but that information is from > memory from a Scientific American in the 70's? Linacs I think use heavy > magnets > too. No, gotcha there, Ben. You're thinking cyclotrons, synchrotrons, or their descendants the storage rings. The linac itself is an electrostatic device. Well, not exactly static, because it uses alternating currents (preferably in a resonance setup) to build high voltage gradients, synchronized with the straight line time of flight of the particles. No magnets there at all. It is built of conducting sleeve segments, which increase in length toward the business end, where the particles get fastest. It's good for space design, because conductive sleeves can be made very lightweight, and because long linear structures can be conveniently deployed as extensible devices. The Best fusion reactor is the Electro static confinement devices for > space > like the ones designed at "starships-design" home page or at > http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html I _like_ Philo Farnsworth's approach to fusion in a vacuum tube. I looked over his published work on the subject, that I could find, a year or so ago. Once again, take away the tube, when you're working in space. Farnsworth's ideas about dynamic confinement, and particularly his electrostatic shielding using a cloud of electrons, deserve a lot more investigation. Some of the snobs working in computational fluid dynamics really need to get a clue on this, but they're all so busy getting paid to work on meaningless trivia. For working in space, take away the can, take away the tube, take away the heavy magnets, even take away the wire, when you can get a beam of electrons to conduct your current. Space construction puts the premium on minimalist design, and also on huge structures. Have fun, enjoy, and be extreme. Johnny Thunderbird From VM Thu Jun 22 15:08:41 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3206" "Thursday" "22" "June" "2000" "17:06:04" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "81" "RE: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3206 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5MM7ll28201 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5MM7jh28187 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA05361; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:07:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bfdc96$39a9fcf0$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001f01bfdc8c$c1000780$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Johnny Thunderbird'" , "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:06:04 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In the context, which is of an MPD arcjet with boron > enrichment from the > anode which strikes the arc, we are not speaking strictly of > a "diffuse tail > of gas" in the jet, for the purpose of the final or "nozzle" > magnetic coil > is to collimate the exhaust ions, restricting their flow to a > relatively > narrow column in the wake. The fraction of the exhaust plasma which is > neutral gas, will of course tend to escape this organized > column, in diffuse > fashion by thermal motion. But thermal motion is very, very > slow as seen by > a beam of relativistic protons, so even the hot neutral gases > won't get far > from the central jet target zone without getting bashed. Not true, you are considering only thermal MOTION in an normal thermal regime. The thermal PRESSURE in a plasma is hundreds of orders of magnitude greater. Unless you can find a way to project the magnetic confinement beyond the physical scope of your nozzle, you will have to deal with thermal absorption in the nozzle itself. Current designs such as VASIMR rely on extremely high density magnetic fields in the nozzle to keep the plasma from coming into contact with the nozzle, but radiated energy is still a problem. At these performance levels, radiated heat absorption is greater then what we are currently dealing with in CHEMICAL rocket engines. If the plasma were to be permitted to contact the nozzle it would melt practically instantly. Many of them, > anyway. Our plasma is cold, it is positively frozen, when the > beam from the > accelerator comes along. We need to take account of the > scaling factors in > speed, contrasting the thermal motions we normally think of as pretty > speedy, with particles accelerated to within a gnat's ass of > C. Convert > from keV to Kelvins, that's your comparison. What you are describing is actually a modified Daedalus engine, replacing the crude "throw the nuclear bomb out the back" concept with "throw the target for the nuclear reaction out the back." As was already pointed out, this will only work if the reaction occurs within close proximity to the pusher plate of the vehicle. Thrust drops off rapidly as the distance from the pusher plate increases. VASIMR is a much more low tech concept that is capable of providing the same performance and is "tunable". There is currently research ongoing that is similar to your concept in that it is still a "throw the nuclear something out the back and detonate it" approach, but it is using antimatter as the activation, not an accelerator. This concept provides many orders of magnitude increase in performance, but is still far short of interstellar capability. Lee Parker He, who through vast immensity can pierce See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied Being peoples every star, May tell why Heaven has made us as we are. -Alexander Pope, "An Essay on Man" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOVKNzERr4uG2f+/WEQI3hgCg3i0MqNp5qhKXRxRbaxicM/g8Qx0An1F2 0cnDxZxQghkUwJ4NqRp0w8fJ =bxqX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Thu Jun 22 16:34:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3753" "Tuesday" "20" "June" "2000" "11:41:30" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "75" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3753 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5MMxeY19609 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5MMxch19586 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin35.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.35]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA18126 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:59:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <394F586A.2BA12057@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000b01bfd7e5$768f5210$0401a8c0@broadsword> <000901bfdb6b$27579ca0$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394E94CB.34CC63B6@jetnet.ab.ca> <000901bfdbd2$9d16de80$f0683dd0@phrenzy> <394EBF87.5ABEA776@jetnet.ab.ca> <002b01bfdc94$7f4bae40$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:41:30 +0000 Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > The _magnetic bottle_ , Ben. Take the can away from the outside, we're in a > fine high vacuum in space. Magnetic fields don't mean heavy steel magnets. > If we're really, really good at this kind of design, magnetic fields might > not even mean copper wire coils, they might not not even mean > superconductive ceramic wire coils, they might just mean dynamically > confined orbits of charged particles. Off hand I have always thought that space was the best place to use a fusion reactor engine. For me however finding up to date fusion information for a ordinary guy has been a problem, the information is too watered down or too technical to be readible,So I may be off on a few points. > I started looking at designs for fusion power in 1966, and I haven't had to > refresh my reading of the primary design concepts very much since. Still the > front runner, the tokamak hasn't had much change over the last 34 years. > That's boring science. Only the maverick designs have any interest to them > at all. > No, gotcha there, Ben. You're thinking cyclotrons, synchrotrons, or their > descendants the storage rings. The linac itself is an electrostatic device. > Well, not exactly static, because it uses alternating currents (preferably > in a resonance setup) to build high voltage gradients, synchronized with the > straight line time of flight of the particles. No magnets there at all. It > is built of conducting sleeve segments, which increase in length toward the > business end, where the particles get fastest. It's good for space design, > because conductive sleeves can be made very lightweight, and because long > linear structures can be conveniently deployed as extensible devices. I differ with your line of thought as the lack of magnets give the light weight. If I had my way people would be working in space like the on the ringed space stations of the early 60's. The Movie 2001 really is the way to build using a reusable launch vehicle.( They did not say but the 2001 craft could have been fusion :) ) With the STUPID system of building bigger disposable rockets construction and development of space structures is impossible, like your fusion reactor. > > I _like_ Philo Farnsworth's approach to fusion in a vacuum tube. I looked > over his published work on the subject, that I could find, a year or so ago. > Once again, take away the tube, when you're working in space. Farnsworth's > ideas about dynamic confinement, and particularly his electrostatic > shielding using a cloud of electrons, deserve a lot more investigation. Some > of the snobs working in computational fluid dynamics really need to get a > clue on this, but they're all so busy getting paid to work on meaningless > trivia. Here is a rather new website that is not all TOP SECRET research, (I hate that way of research ). Take a good look at this site, is has the some very interesting developments. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~rhull > > For working in space, take away the can, take away the tube, take away the > heavy magnets, even take away the wire, when you can get a beam of electrons > to conduct your current. Space construction puts the premium on minimalist > design, and also on huge structures. Have fun, enjoy, and be extreme. Space construction is weight sensitive design,not weight critical. Using disposable rockets for launch makes it weight critical. $%@#! at Nasa for not developing a launch vehicle that works. Payload costs need to be 3 to 5 times the cost of fuel, not 1000x at it now. > Johnny Thunderbird -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Fri Jun 23 09:32:07 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7089" "Friday" "23" "June" "2000" "05:22:24" "-0500" "Johnny Thunderbird" "jthunderbird@nternet.com" nil "131" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7089 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5NALIq23544 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.nternet.com (IDENT:qmailr@eagle.nternet.com [208.60.58.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e5NALHh23536 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6549 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2000 10:19:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phrenzy) (208.60.58.40) by eagle.nternet.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2000 10:19:13 -0000 Message-ID: <006001bfdcfc$edec0300$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> References: <000201bfdc96$39a9fcf0$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Johnny Thunderbird" From: "Johnny Thunderbird" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:22:24 -0500 From: "L. Parker" But thermal motion is very, very > > slow as seen by > > a beam of relativistic protons, so even the hot neutral gases > > won't get far > > from the central jet target zone without getting bashed. > > Not true, you are considering only thermal MOTION in an normal thermal > regime. The thermal PRESSURE in a plasma is hundreds of orders of > magnitude greater. Unless you can find a way to project the magnetic > confinement beyond the physical scope of your nozzle, you will have to > deal with thermal absorption in the nozzle itself. Let's keep pulling ideas apart until we can find out what the objections are. I used "nozzle" in quotes to refer to the magnetic field structure which collimates the exiting plasma of the arcjet. Fields aren't damaged by heat. The physical coil unit producing that field, I don't want heated, because I would like it to stay at 20 Kelvins if I'm using liquid hydrogen to keep its superconductivity, or 77 Kelvins if I'm using liquid nitrogen for that. But I don't have to expose my coil to extreme heat, because a solenoid coil of any diameter will give the same magnetic result. So I can make my coil yards wide to reduce its exposure to the hot stuff, which the magnetic field forming the pinch, or "nozzle", still squeezes just as hard. Also in practice, I would use a thermal shield which doesn't block the magnetism, to keep radiant heat off my superconducting coil. Current designs > such as VASIMR rely on extremely high density magnetic fields in the > nozzle to keep the plasma from coming into contact with the nozzle, > but radiated energy is still a problem. At these performance levels, > radiated heat absorption is greater then what we are currently dealing > with in CHEMICAL rocket engines. If the plasma were to be permitted to > contact the nozzle it would melt practically instantly. The thermal considerations of an electric arc are pretty plain, you have to keep stuff away from it you don't want vaporized. Propulsion engineering like we're doing here has to take this factor into account among the first things. > What you are describing is actually a modified Daedalus engine, > replacing the crude "throw the nuclear bomb out the back" concept with > "throw the target for the nuclear reaction out the back." Daedalus was the name, huh? Searching my memory, all I came up with was something called Project Orion. As was > already pointed out, this will only work if the reaction occurs > within close proximity to the pusher plate of the vehicle. Related to starship terms, a pusher plate does not have to be made of a solid substance. It need only be a medium which can transmit force to the ship. That widens the possibilities, most apparently in the case of magnetic coupling to the ship. Everyone here will allow a Bussard ramjet to scoop up the tenuous ionized hydrogen of interstellar space for its fuel, by the use of a magnetic field many miles in diameter extended away from the solid ship. I contend that use of a similar field will allow efficient use of thermonuclear reactions ignited far behind the ship to help propel that ship. Thrust > drops off rapidly as the distance from the pusher plate increases. Because the solid angle subtended by the small solid pusher plate grows rapidly smaller. Intercepting the particulate fusion products with a very large size magnetic field generated on the ship would enable the ship to scavenge thrust from continuous fusion reaction produced well back in its jet. > VASIMR is a much more low tech concept that is capable of providing > the same performance and is "tunable". There is currently research > ongoing that is similar to your concept in that it is still a "throw > the nuclear something out the back and detonate it" approach, but it > is using antimatter as the activation, not an accelerator. This > concept provides many orders of magnitude increase in performance, but > is still far short of interstellar capability. > > Lee Parker I'm quite willing to ignore antimatter research until somebody shows up with some to sell me. Like zero-point energy, vacuum energy and fairy dust, it doesn't matter whether I believe the theory or not, for I won't encounter any, so I refuse to waste my time thinking about it. I design things to be built with the most plentiful and abundant materials, to raise the probability they will really be constructed sometime. Anyhow, I still press for acceptance of fusion in the jet as a feasible design concept. A population of "slow" thermal nuclei in the plasma emitted by the arcjet, when bathed in a high-brightness beam of relativistic protons, will produce individual fusion reactions, unquestionably. The number of such reactions is enhanced by the presence of a population of nuclei with larger nuclear interaction cross section, measured in barns, such as boron or carbon. These statements are true of individual nuclei, without regard to the plasma composition or density: if those individual nuclei are there, they will get hit and they will consequently undergo individual fusion reactions. That means no special conditions are needed for fusion to occur, fusion will absolutely occur. Most of the confusion which has risen on this point has to do with the criteria for self-sustaining fusion reactions to happen, in the proverbial chain reaction. I have tried to get across the notion that a relativistic particle beam makes fusion happen, whether or not the reaction may be self-sustaining, whether or not a chain reaction occurs. Once that physical fact is accepted, we can work on tuning up the conditions to increase the rate of the reaction, and to harness its energy most efficiently for propulsion. For example, here's the real trick. We can confine the jet to increase its density, without melting any wires, by injecting electrons around it in a spiral path. The jet of our ship is composed partly of a proton beam. We have ionized neutral hydrogen to get those protons, to feed into our linac. But we have to shed an equal number of electrons, so our ship will remain in charge balance. A cathode fires those electrons on a trajectory which nearly grazes the proton beam at an angle, and those electrons will orbit the proton beam in a helical path, by their electrostatic attraction to its positive charge. So we have spiraling electrons, but as moving charges, spiraling electrons are a solenoid, they are a magnet. We have built a magnetic field which confines our jet, for some arbitrary distance back along our jet. Now we have something to tune, now we can start to optimize our conditions to make the most of our fusion. We have no coils to melt, no wires to burn, but we have a magnet which is not sensitive to temperature, not affected in the least by radiant heat. We have a magnet which is as strong as we want to make it, and is as long as we want to make it, and is directly coupled to the inertial environment of the ship, stiff as a steel beam. That's where your fusion belongs. Does that sound any better? Johnny Thunderbird From VM Fri Jun 23 09:32:07 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3573" "Tuesday" "20" "June" "2000" "15:44:39" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "72" "starship-design: Heat design limits" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3573 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5NG76205236 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5NG74h05230 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin53.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.53]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20315 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:06:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <394F9167.36D36F67@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201bfdc96$39a9fcf0$0401a8c0@broadsword> <006001bfdcfc$edec0300$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Heat design limits Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:44:39 +0000 Johnny Thunderbird wrote: > Current designs > > such as VASIMR rely on extremely high density magnetic fields in the > > nozzle to keep the plasma from coming into contact with the nozzle, > > but radiated energy is still a problem. At these performance levels, > > radiated heat absorption is greater then what we are currently dealing > > with in CHEMICAL rocket engines. If the plasma were to be permitted to > > contact the nozzle it would melt practically instantly. This brings up a interesting point... Heat generated buy propulsion systems. Heat in space is transmitted by radiation only and that is lousy at low heat levels. < 100C. Chemical/fission nuclear engines can carry some heat with in the exiting material but what is the size level limits for deep space craft do to the size of the radiators for energy production and trust? > > The thermal considerations of an electric arc are pretty plain, you have to > keep stuff away from it you don't want vaporized. Propulsion engineering > like we're doing here has to take this factor into account among the first > things. > > > VASIMR is a much more low tech concept that is capable of providing > > the same performance and is "tunable". There is currently research > > ongoing that is similar to your concept in that it is still a "throw > > the nuclear something out the back and detonate it" approach, but it > > is using antimatter as the activation, not an accelerator. This > > concept provides many orders of magnitude increase in performance, but > > is still far short of interstellar capability. I think antimatter would easier to produce in space... Cheap solar power and vacuum for the antimatter generators. >I design things to be > built with the most plentiful and abundant materials, to raise the > probability they will really be constructed sometime. That is a good way to design things. The jet of our ship is composed partly of a proton beam. We have ionized > neutral hydrogen to get those protons, to feed into our linac. But we have > to shed an equal number of electrons, so our ship will remain in charge > balance. A cathode fires those electrons on a trajectory which nearly grazes > the proton beam at an angle, and those electrons will orbit the proton beam > in a helical path, by their electrostatic attraction to its positive charge. > So we have spiraling electrons, but as moving charges, spiraling electrons > are a solenoid, they are a magnet. We have built a magnetic field which > confines our jet, for some arbitrary distance back along our jet. Now we > have something to tune, now we can start to optimize our conditions to make > the most of our fusion. We have no coils to melt, no wires to burn, but we > have a magnet which is not sensitive to temperature, not affected in the > least by radiant heat. We have a magnet which is as strong as we want to > make it, and is as long as we want to make it, and is directly coupled to > the inertial environment of the ship, stiff as a steel beam. That's where > your fusion belongs. Where does the energy for the linac come from? What about loses with the proton beam being slowed down by fusion debris and the fact that only a small amount of fusion power is converted into thrust because you have no nozzle. (fusion)<45 degrees angle>[ship thrust shield] this is 45/360 or 1/8 thrust used for propulsion. > Johnny Thunderbird -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Fri Jun 23 09:32:07 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1000" "Friday" "23" "June" "2000" "09:14:38" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1000 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5NGDte08261 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@[206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5NGDnh08248 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5NGDfV25434 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5NGEec02348; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:14:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14675.36078.810682.557779@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <006001bfdcfc$edec0300$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> References: <000201bfdc96$39a9fcf0$0401a8c0@broadsword> <006001bfdcfc$edec0300$3b3a3cd0@phrenzy> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Johnny Thunderbird writes: > I'm quite willing to ignore antimatter research until somebody shows up with > some to sell me. Like zero-point energy, vacuum energy and fairy dust, it > doesn't matter whether I believe the theory or not, for I won't encounter > any, so I refuse to waste my time thinking about it. I design things to be > built with the most plentiful and abundant materials, to raise the > probability they will really be constructed sometime. Antimatter-catalyzed fusion uses relatively small amounts of antiprotons to catalyze normal fusion. From information other people have posted about it here, I got the impression that the antiprotons can catalyze many fusion reactions before being annihilated, which is why the amount needed is fairly low, and the fusion can be obtained at lower densities/pressures/temperatures than would otherwise be necessary. As the antiprotons could be produced using a particle accelerator, it's actually somewhat compatible with your idea. From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["571" "Saturday" "24" "June" "2000" "14:14:5" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "12" "Re: RE: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 571 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5OIFrO29007 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [216.200.67.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5OIFph29001 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-71.boo.net [208.184.99.71]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA15655 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:15:42 -0400 Message-Id: <200006241815.OAA15655@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:14:5 -0500 "Thrust drops off rapidly as the distance from the pusher plate increases. VASIMR is a much more low tech concept that is capable of providing the same performance and is "tunable". " Forgive me if my question is very rudamentary (I have a hard time reading all the way through some of these messages,) but this sounds terribly innefficient to me. If you're talking about varying the thrust by changing the distance from the pusher plate, doesn't that mean that you're expelling the same amount of energy, no matter how fast you want to go? Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3352" "Saturday" "24" "June" "2000" "18:14:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "76" "RE: RE: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3352 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5ONGcd01936 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5ONGbh01920 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA23421; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:16:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bfde32$2c972fe0$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200006241815.OAA15655@boo-mda02.boo.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Connor'" , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:14:56 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > "Thrust drops off rapidly as the distance from the pusher > plate increases. > VASIMR is a much more low tech concept that is capable of providing > the same performance and is "tunable". " > > Forgive me if my question is very rudamentary (I have a hard > time reading all the way > through some of these messages,) but this sounds terribly > innefficient to me. If you're > talking about varying the thrust by changing the distance > from the pusher plate, doesn't > that mean that you're expelling the same amount of energy, no > matter how fast you want > to go? Sorry, I guess I DID run a few thoughts together there... In the text quoted form the previous message, even though the same amount of energy is expelled, the amount of it that does WORK is different. The farther from the pusher plate the explosion occurs, the less useful work that can be extracted from it. The energy is still there, just wasted to open space. Project Orion envisioned a craft that literally threw small hydrogen bombs out the back and set them off, resulting in a "push" against a heavy, shock mounted plate at the back of the craft which also served to shield the rest of the craft from radiation. When I say small, I mean around 1 Kiloton, still large enough to level a small city, but terribly inefficient as much of the energy was wasted to open space. Nevertheless, this crude concept could still reach a respectable fraction of the speed of light, and what it lacked in efficiency it made up for with thrust, it could propel HEAVY payloads. Today, 40 years later, we have achieved a mastery of the fusion process impossible to even imagine when Project Orion was first conceived. We can, using a small supply of anti-protons initiate fusion on a microscopic scale and liberate within the confines of a magnetic nozzle a miniature hydrogen bomb. The efficiency of this process is thousands of times higher than Project Orion and still maintains a respectable thrust. Of course, this is "bleeding" edge research, meaning that it is not quite ready for prime time. VASIMR is an entirely different approach. It does not seek to achieve fusion, just the thrust and high efficiency that are traditionally thought of as being achievable only by a fusion engine. It works by ionizing a fuel and then feeding it into what amounts to a large, extremely powerful microwave tube where energy is pumped in until a plasma is formed. The plasma then escapes into a magnetic nozzle which accelerates the escaping plasma even further before it finally exits the engine. For interplanetary purposes, this engine is ideal. Since it is controllable in the amount of fuel and energy applied, it can be tuned for either high thrust or high efficiency, or somewhere in between. A cargo flight for instance could be programmed for a high thrust transfer that would reach Mars in a few weeks at very high but brief acceleration. A crew carrying vessel on the other hand could accelerate more gradually, and continuously, without using up all of its fuel. This is a rather simplified presentation, but essentially accurate. Lee -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOVVA70Rr4uG2f+/WEQKaawCbB9vx4KiTNo2kaOrXTthY+V0WdIsAoL1i 51JEMDv9WwAWNT6qXwH8t0nC =PoLc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2191" "Saturday" "24" "June" "2000" "22:26:52" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2191 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5P1SN701236 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5P1SLh01227 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin43.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.43]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA06088 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:28:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <395535AC.2F3275E9@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000d01bfde32$2c972fe0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:26:52 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > Today, 40 years later, we have achieved a mastery of the fusion > process impossible to even imagine when Project Orion was first > conceived. We can, using a small supply of anti-protons initiate > fusion on a microscopic scale and liberate within the confines of a > magnetic nozzle a miniature hydrogen bomb. The efficiency of this > process is thousands of times higher than Project Orion and still > maintains a respectable thrust. Of course, this is "bleeding" edge > research, meaning that it is not quite ready for prime time. That is not the problem -- antimatter is hard to come by. I have not seen any do it your self anti-proton kits at the local Radio Shack. :) Fusion kits are scarce too. > VASIMR is an entirely different approach. It does not seek to achieve > fusion, just the thrust and high efficiency that are traditionally > thought of as being achievable only by a fusion engine. It works by > ionizing a fuel and then feeding it into what amounts to a large, > extremely powerful microwave tube where energy is pumped in until a > plasma is formed. The plasma then escapes into a magnetic nozzle which > accelerates the escaping plasma even further before it finally exits > the engine. > > For interplanetary purposes, this engine is ideal. Since it is > controllable in the amount of fuel and energy applied, it can be tuned > for either high thrust or high efficiency, or somewhere in between. A > cargo flight for instance could be programmed for a high thrust > transfer that would reach Mars in a few weeks at very high but brief > acceleration. A crew carrying vessel on the other hand could > accelerate more gradually, and continuously, without using up all of > its fuel. This is a rather simplified presentation, but essentially > accurate. This engine still requires a energy source for propulsion. Solar energy or beamed microwaves is required. Speaking of microwaves here is a great light source for non earth habitats. http://www.sulfurlamp.com/tech.htm -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1069" "Saturday" "24" "June" "2000" "21:48:11" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "23" "starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1069 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5P4mDc10423 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5P4mCh10416 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante20.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante20.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.70]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id VAA25110 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:48:11 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante20.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id VAA65342 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:48:11 -0700 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: Idea Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 21:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Hi all, I recently read a book about the "X-planes". And read a little about the X-6 project to use a nuclear reactor as the heat source for a gas turbine engine. I know that the original design required too much heavy shielding, but I was wondering about using a small IEC fusion device along the lines of the farnsworth fusor for atmospheric flight. A fusing plasma would be quite hot, and emit photons along with all kinds of charged particles and neutrons. A shield structure around the electrodes would convert the radiation into heat, which would have air forced past it to keep it cool. A supply of liquified gas could be kept on board to provide reaction mass for translation to vacuum (SSTO?). Anyway, this is all just a fanciful idea on my part. I'm most interested in hearing what's wrong with the idea... Regards, Nels _____________________________________________ Nobody's perfect, but we are working on it. -Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen When you come to a fork in the road, take it. -Yogi Berra _____________________________________________ From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1313" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "02:33:22" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1313 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5P63jI24089 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5P63ah24078 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin35.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.35]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA18205 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:03:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39556F72.87570711@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: Idea Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:33:22 +0000 "N. Lindberg" wrote: > > Hi all, > I recently read a book about the "X-planes". And read a little > about the X-6 project to use a nuclear reactor as the heat source for a > gas turbine engine. I know that the original design required too much > heavy shielding, but I was wondering about using a small IEC fusion device > along the lines of the farnsworth fusor for atmospheric flight. A fusing > plasma would be quite hot, and emit photons along with all kinds of > charged particles and neutrons. A shield structure around the electrodes > would convert the radiation into heat, which would have air forced past it > to keep it cool. A supply of liquified gas could be kept on board to > provide reaction mass for translation to vacuum (SSTO?). Anyway, this is > all just a fanciful idea on my part. I'm most interested in hearing > what's wrong with the idea... Current fusors that I know of are working at a very low energy factor on the order of 1E-10 http://www.earthtech.org/experiments.htm and http://www.richmond.infi.net/~rhull Also the fusor still has to be shielded with the same shielding as a fission reactor. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1121" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "09:26:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Plasma power" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1121 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5PETIc10712 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5PETHh10703 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA03595; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:29:00 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01bfdeb1$a3e5fe80$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <395535AC.2F3275E9@jetnet.ab.ca> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Plasma power Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:26:45 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > That is not the problem -- antimatter is hard to come by. > I have not seen any do it your self anti-proton kits at the local > Radio Shack. :) Fusion kits are scarce too. Which is one of the reasons that using it as a catalyst only is so attractive. It is not a one to one conversion of matter and antimatter. Nevertheless, at today's production rates, it will be years before any sort of antimatter engine, catalyzed or not is practical. > This engine still requires a energy source for propulsion. > Solar energy or beamed microwaves is required. Speaking of > microwaves here is a great light source for non earth habitats. > http://www.sulfurlamp.com/tech.htm True, it does require an onboard reactor or some other large energy source. The test beds running in the lab are huge, heavy, and running off of the local power grid. Anybody got a long extension cord? Lee -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOVYWpURr4uG2f+/WEQKCNACfelDdgSnlRZhhxze9vdfwnTeyViYAoIre GNSNn9BndgrI27Dno8zyWB8R =74vN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1640" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "14:16:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1640 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5PIGpj23260 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5PIGoh23244 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id d.e1.62581f6 (3951); Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 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: starship-design: Idea Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:16:36 EDT In a message dated 6/24/00 11:50:15 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: >Hi all, > I recently read a book about the "X-planes". And read a little >about the X-6 project to use a nuclear reactor as the heat source for a >gas turbine engine. I know that the original design required too much >heavy shielding, == Actually they ran unshielded and contaminated everything near them 8( Sill have a couple of the prototypes up in Yuca flats I think. They cooled down finaliy so they have taked videos of old guys walking around and talking about them on the discovery channel. >== but I was wondering about using a small IEC fusion device >along the lines of the farnsworth fusor for atmospheric flight. A fusing >plasma would be quite hot, and emit photons along with all kinds of >charged particles and neutrons. A shield structure around the electrodes >would convert the radiation into heat, which would have air forced past >it >to keep it cool. A supply of liquified gas could be kept on board to >provide reaction mass for translation to vacuum (SSTO?). Anyway, this >is >all just a fanciful idea on my part. I'm most interested in hearing >what's wrong with the idea... > >Regards, >Nels on the fusion engine page I worked up for lit I list a reference sourc for a paper on IEC fusion SSTO's. You can't use the plasma, because ejecting it into the airstream and not spoiling the vacume would be a bit wrough. However since virtually all the power is transmutted into electricity. You can super heat the air with a arc-jet like arangement, then later heat water or a gas once you leave atmosphere. Kelly From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1682" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "14:16:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1682 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5PIHN724445 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5PIHMh24437 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id z.77.5e2d3f7 (3951); Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <77.5e2d3f7.2687a686@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Idea Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:16:38 EDT In a message dated 6/25/00 1:05:39 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"N. Lindberg" wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I recently read a book about the "X-planes". And read a little >> about the X-6 project to use a nuclear reactor as the heat source for >a >> gas turbine engine. I know that the original design required too much >> heavy shielding, but I was wondering about using a small IEC fusion device >> along the lines of the farnsworth fusor for atmospheric flight. A fusing >> plasma would be quite hot, and emit photons along with all kinds of >> charged particles and neutrons. A shield structure around the electrodes >> would convert the radiation into heat, which would have air forced past >it >> to keep it cool. A supply of liquified gas could be kept on board to >> provide reaction mass for translation to vacuum (SSTO?). Anyway, this >is >> all just a fanciful idea on my part. I'm most interested in hearing >> what's wrong with the idea... > >Current fusors that I know of are working at a very low energy factor >on the order of 1E-10 http://www.earthtech.org/experiments.htm >and http://www.richmond.infi.net/~rhull >Also the fusor still has to be shielded with the same shielding >as a fission reactor. If you use anti nutronic fuels D + He or H + Li6 there is no radiation shielding required. I wrote Bussard about that and he said the steel presure vessel would provide all the shielding nessisary, and the efficency would pe high enough tonot require much of any cooling system. Also the papers go into some detail on the power per weight of a IEC fusion system being orders of magnitudes better then other designs considered. Kelly From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1192" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "06:25:13" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1192 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5PIbcA28292 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5PIbbh28286 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin41.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.41]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA05047; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:37:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3955A5C9.99B281A2@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <77.5e2d3f7.2687a686@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Idea Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 06:25:13 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > If you use anti nutronic fuels D + He or H + Li6 there is no radiation > shielding required. I wrote Bussard about that and he said the steel presure > vessel would provide all the shielding nessisary, and the efficency would pe > high enough tonot require much of any cooling system. All reactions will be a little dirty as you have several reactions with different fuels. D+He sure but D+D still will happen too. Don't forget X-rays too. To heat the air up you still have to be hotter than hell,and that heat exchange may be rather hard to do. > Also the papers go into some detail on the power per weight of a IEC fusion > system being orders of magnitudes better then other designs considered. Email me the papers... Most people seem to be closed mouth on fusion facts until it is time for more R&D funding.It is true IEC designs are several orders of magnitude lower in weight. They also have lower power output because the smaller size. Not quite "Mr Fusion" but close. > Kelly -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Sun Jun 25 16:56:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3205" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "18:46:04" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Idea" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3205 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5PMkJk25466 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5PMkHh25461 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id z.f.5aab848 (6931) for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Idea Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:46:04 EDT In a message dated 6/25/00 1:37:58 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> If you use anti nutronic fuels D + He or H + Li6 there is no radiation >> shielding required. I wrote Bussard about that and he said the steel >> presure >> vessel would provide all the shielding nessisary, and the efficency >> would be high enough tonot require much of any cooling system. > >All reactions will be a little dirty as you have several reactions >with different fuels. D+He sure but D+D still will happen too. >Don't forget X-rays too. That was expected to be low enough to keep the radiation load low enough that the heavy steel presure vessel would provode enough shielding. >To heat the air up you still have to be hotter than hell,and that heat >exchange may be rather hard to do. Actually I was talking about heating electrically. Generate a arc and the air that plows through it gets hot. The result is also pretty ionized so microwaves can be used to heat it more easily. >> Also the papers go into some detail on the power per weight of a IEC >> fusion >> system being orders of magnitudes better then other designs considered. > >Email me the papers... I only have hardcopies, not e-copies. >Most people seem to be closed mouth on fusion >facts until it is time for more R&D funding.It is true IEC designs >are several orders of magnitude lower in weight. They also have lower >power output because the smaller size. Not quite "Mr Fusion" but close. These were lower weight per same power. The papers were H. D. Froning, Jr. and R. W. Bussard, "Fusion-Electric Propulsion for Hypersonic Flight," AIAA paper 93-261. R. W. Bussard and L. W. Jameson, "The QED Engine Spectrum: Fusion-Electric Propulsion for Air-Breathing to Interstellar Flight," AIAA paper 93-2006. R. W. Bussard and L. W. Jameson, "Some Physics considerations of Magnetic Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement: A New Concept for Spherical Converging-Flow Fusion," Fusion Technology vol 19 (March 1991). R. W. Bussard and L. W. Jameson, "Design Considerations for Clean QED Fusion Propulsion Systems," prepared for the Eleventh Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion, Albuquerque, 9-13 Jan 94. R. W. Bussard , "The QED Engine System: Direct Electric Fusion-Powered Systems for Aerospace Flight Propulsion" by Robert W. Bussard, EMC2-1190-03, available from Energy/Matter Conversion Corp., 9100 A. Center Street, Manassas, VA 22110. (This is an introduction to the application of Bussard's version of the Farnsworth/Hirsch electrostatic confinement fusion technology to propulsion. Which gives specific impulses of between 1500 and 5000 secounds. Farnsworth/Hirsch demonstrated a 10**10 neutron flux with their device back in 1969 but it was dropped when panic ensued over the surprising stability of the Soviet Tokamak. Hirsch, responsible for the panic, has recently recanted and is back working on QED. -- Jim Bowery) Anyway if you go to a good library (especially a university libray) they should be able to get you a copy of these easy. If that doesn't work I could scan things in and mail you, but those images would keep both our modelm going for a long time. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2287" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "09:46:47" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "47" "starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2287 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q23q011889 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q23ph11884 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin39.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.39]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA24553 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:03:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3955D507.C667D63F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC. Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:46:47 +0000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Actually I was talking about heating electrically. Generate a arc and the > air that plows through it gets hot. The result is also pretty ionized so > microwaves can be used to heat it more easily. It would have to be Direct conversion to electricity however. > The papers were ... CUT .... Since nobody has got fusion working with power gain, most of the ideas while valuable are outdated because when fusion does work all the numbers needs to be revised again. > (This is an introduction to the application of Bussard's version of the > Farnsworth/Hirsch electrostatic confinement fusion technology to propulsion. > Which gives specific impulses of between 1500 and 5000 secounds. > Farnsworth/Hirsch demonstrated a 10**10 neutron flux with their device back > in 1969 but it was dropped when panic ensued over the surprising stability of > the Soviet Tokamak. Hirsch, responsible for the panic, has recently recanted > and is back working on QED. -- Jim Bowery) I read the quote before, but that was with a D-T reaction and you can't experiment with D-T unless you be some TOP-SECRET HUSH HUSH LAB for USA government research. What I want to know is the % of fusion power to input power and the projected power output of the current batch of IEC devices now and 5 years down the road. Assuming it takes 100 watts for 1 second of thust,for 3,000 seconds that is 300Kw(225HP?) for 1 kg of thrust.1 Megawatt gives you 3 kg of thrust. Good for a space tug but not a craft to take you into LEO. Darn back to good old chemical rockets. I still favor a two stage orbital craft... Manned 1st stage and unmanned 2 stage to dock at a space station. ( I also favor 12/24 bit computers but that is another story ) > > Anyway if you go to a good library (especially a university libray) they > should be able to get you a copy of these easy. If that doesn't work I could > scan things in and mail you, but those images would keep both our modelm > going for a long time. ;) Ha - If I had access to that I would save on rent... just put my cot under that stack of books there and ... -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/al/index.html From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["426" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "23:55:38" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "9" "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 426 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q3vQU07165 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [216.200.67.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q3vPh07160 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-14.boo.net [208.184.99.14]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA19142 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:57:09 -0400 Message-Id: <200006260357.XAA19142@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:55:38 -0500 "I think that at suitable energies, the debroglie wavelength of the ship can be made so short that its probability of interaction is very low - you could fly through a planet in the same way that a gamma ray passes through matter without interacting very much. " I was talking about the feasability of near light speed travel (with respect to interstellar dust and debris) when he brings this up. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["920" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "21:09:57" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "18" "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 920 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q490s10081 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@[206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q48xh10073 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q48se21164 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q49wc00355; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:09:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14678.55189.625525.510659@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200006260357.XAA19142@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200006260357.XAA19142@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Connor writes: > "I think that at suitable energies, the debroglie wavelength of the > ship can be made so short that its probability of interaction is very > low - you could fly through a planet in the same way that a gamma ray > passes through matter without interacting very much. " > > I was talking about the feasability of near light speed travel (with > respect to interstellar dust and debris) when he brings this up. Who's "he" here? That's really hilarious. There are so many things wrong with that idea. The two biggest problems are that the ship is so much bigger than a photon or other elementary particle that even if you were to consider it to be a single particle and calculate its DeBroglie wavelength, it would already be vanishingly small (and quantum wavelength isn't why particles interact with each other or not), and that gamma rays are actually pretty good at interacting with matter. From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["581" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "11:57:01" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 581 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q5N9K01092 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q5N8h01085 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin49.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.49]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA06453 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:23:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3955F38D.556ACD36@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200006260357.XAA19142@boo-mda02.boo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:57:01 +0000 Connor wrote: > > "I think that at suitable energies, the debroglie wavelength of the ship can be made so > short that its probability of interaction is very low - you could fly through a planet in the > same way that a gamma ray passes through matter without interacting very much. " Has he written any papers on the "Infinite Improbability Drive" as described by Douglas Adams in his 5 part Trilogy too? :) -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Ancient Logic" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Monday" "26" "June" "2000" "02:8:27" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "10" "Re: Re: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Has anyone heard of this?" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 256 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5Q6AF111119 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [216.200.67.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5Q6ADh11114 for ; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-20.boo.net [208.184.99.20]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA21100 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:10:12 -0400 Message-Id: <200006260610.CAA21100@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Has anyone heard of this? Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 2:8:27 -0500 > Has he written any papers on the "Infinite Improbability Drive" > as described by Douglas Adams in his 5 part Trilogy too? :) I have no idea what you're referring to, but thanks for your help. I'm gonna go laugh at him now. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Jun 26 09:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6699" "Sunday" "25" "June" "2000" "22:15:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "165" "starship-design: Charting a Course to the Stars " "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Charting a Course to the Stars" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6699 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5QBsst06690 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5QBsrh06683 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p466.gnt.com [204.49.91.82]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA07024 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:54:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfdf65$32d2ccf0$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Charting a Course to the Stars Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:15:38 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Charting a Course to the Stars Largest Spacecraft To Sail the Galaxy Click the image to see a larger 198k view. The vast wispy sheet, depicted in the NASA artist's concept at left, is an interstellar kite -- a Space Sail -- that could power interstellar flights beyond our Solar System. Engineers at the Interstellar Propulsion Research Office of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, are devloping a rigid-yet-lightweight carbon fiber material that could be used to build just such a giant space sail. NASA would like to be able to launch such a sailing craft --the biggest, fastest interstellar probe ever -- toward exotic destinations beyond our Solar System. The thin reflective sails, made of composite materials, would span 440 yards. That's twice the diameter of the Louisiana Superdome. Sunlight falling on the sail would push the probe out of the Solar System and across our Milky Way galaxy. Propulsion for later missions might use microwave beams or laser beams to drive the sail. Flat out fast. This spacecraft would be fast, very fast. It would accelerate to a lightning-quick 58 miles per second, which is more than ten times faster than a space shuttle's speed of 5 miles per second in orbit. It could cover the distance from New York to Los Angeles in less than a minute. The first intentional interstellar probe probably would travel beyond the edge of the Solar System to a distance of more than 23 billion miles. To astronomers that would be a distance of 250 astronomical units. One astronomical unit is the distance from Earth to the Sun -- 93 million miles. Alpha Centauri. By comparison, if the distance from Earth to the Sun equaled one foot, Earth would be a mere 6 inches from the planet Mars, 38 feet from the planet Pluto, 250 feet from the outer boundaries of the Solar System, and an immense 51 miles from the nearest star system, which is known as Alpha Centauri. Such a round trip from Earth out beyond our Solar System to the Alpha Centauri star system and back to Earth would take about fifteen years. People will follow. Sail propulsion will be used for robot missions to distanct stars and then, later, for human travel. How soon? Humankind's first planned venture outside of the Solar System could begin as early as 2010. The challenging and unprecedented 15-year journey would be the most audacious deep space mission ever undertaken. Click the image to view a 288k QuickTime video movie of interstellar travel by solar sail. Then click Back to return here The so-called "precursor mission" would travel five times faster than the famous Voyager interplanetary probe launched in 1977. In fact, the new sailing probe would pass the old Voyager in the year 2018. At that time, it would have gone as far in eight years as Voyager would have journeyed in 41 years. Why use a sail? Old-fashioned booster rockets need so much fuel that they can't push their own weight beyond the Solar System into interstellar space. Space sails, on the other hand, require no fuel. Imagine the wind pushing sailboats across water on Earth. The thin reflective space sails would be propelled through space by sunlight, microwave beams or laser beams. Rays of light from the Sun would deliver Herculean momentum to the voluminous structure. Nothing this big has ever been deployed in space. How big are they? The carbon fiber sailcloth would have a density of less than one-tenth ounce per square yard. That's the equivalent of flattening out one raisin so much that it covers a square yard. Sails in space would have a very large surface area -- about a half-mile wide -- but would be thinner than cellophane. The sailcloth's carbon fiber material would have a thin coating of reflective aluminum. The composite material sailcloth, rigged for interstellar flight, would be sent to space on an old-fashioned expendable space rocket. There, it would unfurl like a fan. Sailing through the galaxy. The concept of space sails is not new. About the time Jamestown was being established as America's first permanent colony at dawn of the 17th century, German astronomer Johannes Kepler penned a letter to Italian astronomer Galileo, advocating "ship or sails adapted to the heavenly breezes" to travel to Jupiter or the Moon. Having observed that a comet's tail always faces away from the Sun, Kepler concluded that light from the Sun must exert a force that pushes its tail away. Rays of light emanating from the Sun provide tremendous momentum that could push a solar sail to a speed of about 150,000 mph. That would allow space sails to travel an interplanetary route four to six times faster than old-fashioned rocket propulsion systems. In addition to moving remarkably faster than traditional systems, solar sails would require no fuel. The Sun would supply all of the energy. The invention of strong lightweight composite materials in the 20th century made space sailing possible. Click the image to see a larger 198k view. Space sail team. Team members from Marshall Center in Huntsville, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and the University of Washington in Seattle are working to make space sails a reality. JPL is responsible for NASA's interstellar missions, while Marshall is responsible for developing transportation systems for missions. NASA's Advanced Space Transportation Program pushes technologies to increase reliability and reduce costs. Marshall engineers are exposing space sail composite materials to harsh conditions in a simulated space environment and testing their performance and durability in extremely hot and cold temperatures. The team needs to figure out how to build, package and unfurl a solar sail and control its direction of travel through space. Since the sail would get very close to the Sun, thermal protection will be important. Other ways to sail. A different concept of space sailing concept is known as mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion (M2P2). Rather than sailcloth, it blows up a huge magnetic bubble for a sail. The probe would sail away as the bubble was pushed along by charged particles of the solar wind, instead of rays of sunlight. The charged particles of the solar wind would interact with the magnetic field to push the magnetic bubble. Lee "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBOVbK2kRr4uG2f+/WEQLhuQCguHIRc6FLEgT8M90S+N9XSdt9Z4QAnj3L A9zHpeXOk8UbUEkm5XtKCn3J =iJpK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From VM Tue Jun 27 16:37:57 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2927" "Tuesday" "27" "June" "2000" "19:35:14" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2927 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5RNa1d18259 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5RNa0Y18253 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id z.b2.71dcbf7 (4567); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC. Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:35:14 EDT In a message dated 6/25/00 9:06:01 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Actually I was talking about heating electrically. Generate a arc and >the >> air that plows through it gets hot. The result is also pretty ionized >so >> microwaves can be used to heat it more easily. > >It would have to be Direct conversion to electricity however. Thyats standard for IEC with anti-nutronic fuels. >> The papers were >... CUT .... >Since nobody has got fusion working with power gain, most of the >ideas while valuable are outdated because when fusion does work >all the numbers needs to be revised again. True performance of real systems ae likely to varry. ;) >> (This is an introduction to the application of Bussard's version of >the >> Farnsworth/Hirsch electrostatic confinement fusion technology to propulsion. >> Which gives specific impulses of between 1500 and 5000 secounds. >> Farnsworth/Hirsch demonstrated a 10**10 neutron flux with their device >back >> in 1969 but it was dropped when panic ensued over the surprising stability >of >> the Soviet Tokamak. Hirsch, responsible for the panic, has recently recanted >> and is back working on QED. -- Jim Bowery) > >I read the quote before, but that was with a D-T reaction and you can't >experiment with D-T unless you be some TOP-SECRET HUSH HUSH LAB for >USA government research. What I want to know is the % of fusion power to >input power and the projected power output of the current batch of IEC >devices now and 5 years down the road. Other then desktop universty jobs I doubt anyone is looking into them anymore. With a fuel gut and eco-groups fusion isn't very marketable, So the commercial R&D pulled out late '80's. DOE has stated they won't fund research into any new designs until they make their old systems work. (Tocomac's) >Assuming it takes 100 watts for 1 second of thust,for 3,000 seconds >that is 300Kw(225HP?) for 1 kg of thrust.1 Megawatt gives you 3 kg of thrust. Actually no it would be a 100 watts, but 300,000 Watt seconds or .083 KW/hours. Since the 15 foot bussard reactor had a power output in the 10 E9 watts range, that provides more then enough power for a good sized ship. >Good for a space tug but not a craft to take you into LEO. >Darn back to good old chemical rockets. I still favor a two stage orbital >craft... Manned 1st stage and unmanned 2 stage to dock at a space station. >( I also favor 12/24 bit computers but that is another story ) > >> >> Anyway if you go to a good library (especially a university libray) they >> should be able to get you a copy of these easy. If that doesn't work >I could >> scan things in and mail you, but those images would keep both our modelm >> going for a long time. ;) > >Ha - If I had access to that I would save on rent... just put my >cot under that stack of books there and ... ;) A library can order you photocopies. Kelly From VM Wed Jun 28 09:19:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["569" "Tuesday" "27" "June" "2000" "22:47:47" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 569 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5S2olo15613 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5S2okY15607 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.31]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000628025040.EKBZ2120.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: <39596753.8CB30CE6@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC. Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:47:47 -0400 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Other then desktop universty jobs I doubt anyone is looking into them > anymore. With a fuel gut and eco-groups fusion isn't very marketable, So the > commercial R&D pulled out late '80's. DOE has stated they won't fund > research into any new designs until they make their old systems work. > (Tocomac's) So what are we paying these shlubs for??!! Throw the bums out! Damn, I guess what we need is someone with deep pockets, big balls, no one to answer to, and a passion for space. And if there already are such, we need more of 'em. From VM Wed Jun 28 11:18:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1552" "Wednesday" "28" "June" "2000" "13:09:26" "" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1552 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5SH9l911512 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5SH9kY11502 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200006281709.e5SH9kY11502@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id c.66.50ae391 (15900); Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web41.aolmail.aol.com (web41.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.161.2]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:09:27 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: Re: starship-design: Launch Craft.and IEC. Date: Wed Jun 28 13:09:26 2000 >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Other then desktop universty jobs I doubt anyone is looking into them > > anymore. With a fuel gut and eco-groups fusion isn't very marketable, So > the > > commercial R&D pulled out late '80's. DOE has stated they won't fund > > research into any new designs until they make their old systems work. > > (Tocomac's) > > So what are we paying these shlubs for??!! Throw the bums out! I'ld guess for political reasons. Given the rapid progress industry had in it bref forray into fusion research, I doubt we really pay them to research energy systems. > Damn, I guess what we need is someone with deep pockets, big balls, no one to > answer to, and a passion for space. And if there already are such, we need > more of > 'em. Fussion nearly had such a White Knight in Bob Gucioni (publishet of Penthouse and related such. He and his late wife were big fans of cutting edge stuff. Usually hosed dinners with astrounats, sceintists, SF authors of Note. Etc. He invighted Bussard over, got interersted in the IEC concept, and was going to fund Bussards research (about 100-200 million dollars worth). He was gleefully looking foreward to craming down the throat of all his detractors. "So you think I'm nothing but a pornagrapher leech, well my skin mags just ended the energy crises for all time!!!" But he got screwed in a zoning deal foe a casino project in Atlantic city, lost about a billino, and had to back out. Space would be harder though, you need more money - and NASA's a more formidable enemy.