Re: starship-design: my $0.02 (finally)

["L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

Hi Kevin,

In response to your post, I have a few comments and observations...
 
> 1) If we do end up using a black hole for any kind of thrust or
> conversion, I'd suggest storing it in front of the ship where it could
> act as a sheild.  In fact, just figuring out how to get the black hole
> up to light speed would mean that the ship could travel along for free,
> riding the gravity well.  i.e. we stay behind the black hole, just close
> enough to be pulled in at the same rate as the black hole is running
> away toward Tau Ceti.

Any energy you expend accelerating a black hole will more than make up for
any "free ride" you might hope to get riding on a black hole's coat tails
so to speak. No, I think the best use we will get out of a black hole is to
generate either thrust directly, or energy to power a thrust generating
system.

> 3) flywheels:  Instead of 1 large 200-meter flywheel, how about a lot of
> smaller one?
> I know better than to suggest 200 1-meter flywheels, but you get the
> idea.  this should help us stay on course also (angular momentum)

I'm not real confident of this flywheel idea, but I still think that the
best flywheel you can hope to achieve is a spinning black hole. Especially
since the event horizon would only be measured in nanometers!

> 
> 4) wish list:  tapping the zero-point energy. estimated to be 1E16 per
> cubic centimeter (not sure about number, maybe 1E18.... anyone know the
> real figrue)  The problem with this one is thermodynamic.  where do you
> find the "cold sink" (the place with little or no zero point energy) to
> generate the gradient.  or, how do you convert zero point energy into
> matter and antimatter?  Virtual particle drive anyone?

Ahh, now this idea I like. I have never really seen a good explanation of
zero point energy, but what little I know sounds promising. (There is a
rumor that even NASA is looking into this.)
> 

Lee Parker