Re: BOUNCE starship-design: Non-member submission from ["Kevin 'Tex' Houston" <hous0042@email.umn.edu>]

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu wrote:
> 
> >From stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu  Mon Jul 21 20:18:37 1997
> Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.51])
>         by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA11102
>         for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from pub-15-c-166.dialup.umn.edu by mhub1.tc.umn.edu; Mon, 21 Jul 97 22:18:35 -0500
> Message-ID: <33D42226.44CB@email.umn.edu>
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:59:50 -0500
> From: "Kevin 'Tex' Houston" <hous0042@email.umn.edu>
> Reply-To: hous0042@email.umn.edu
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Starship design group <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
> Subject: Solutions to some of the beaming problems and a new idea
> References: <m0wpXzX-000FIJC@helium.tip.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> Timothy van der Linden wrote to Jim:
> >
> > You touched the subject beaming (of either a probe or the starship itself).
> > I'd like you to read a rough summary of all the problems that this group has
> > come up with so far.
> >
> > You should be able to find it here:
> >
> > http://www1.tip.nl/~t596675/sd/beaming/beam.html
> >
> 
> Nice job Tim.  here are some solution ideas for your problems list.
> 
> #9  redshift causes the momentum to decrease:
> #15 doppler shift changes reflectivity:
> 
> Sweeping the beam into higher frequencies, and then back down, as the
> mission prgresses; would allow the ship to receive it energy at a near
> constant frequency.  Any slight deviations should be within tolerance.
> 
> #14. communication:
> 
> Using different wavelengths of EM for engine, comm.
> 
> for example, if you are using Maser for power, then you should use a
> laser to communicate.  The laser guide beaming messages back to earth
> could be made of plastic or glass which would be totally immune to
> microwaves
> 
> #16 acceleration means limited beaming time.
> 
> As we say in the Computer Biz, "That's not a bug, that's a feature."
> 
> This reduces the amount of time the puclic needs to think about all that
> energy being poured out into space, and decreases the likelyhood that
> someone will turn the beam off halfway through the mission.  either by
> activly flipping the switch or slow politically motivated starvation.
> also, since the time rate of the crew slows down near turn-around, they
> should preceive constant power (J) (providing the beam also sweeps up in
> frequency)
> 
> 18 could be solved by moving several large asteroids (or lots of smaller
> ones) into a proper orbit around the sun.  (one that is normal to the
> line connecting the two suns.)
> since we'll have to build this thing out in space, I'll bet we have a
> lot of slag/waste that could be used to 'anchor' the transmitter in
> place.  a conventional rocket or ion engine would be much better for
> conteracting the beams thrust.
> 
> ---------start new idea -------------------
> 
> Each transmitter could be a stationary fusion rocket with the beam
> pointed in one direction, and the fusion exhaust (at very low speed)
> pointed in the other.  Since the whole thing is stationary, it could be
> refueled periodicly by robot tenders.  The fusion motor could tap most
> of the kinetic/thermal energy of the fusion products to provide
> electricity to power the transmitter, with a little left over kinetic
> energy and a fair amount of mass to provide a counter balancing force.
> 
> ---------end new idea -------comments?-----
> 
> --
> Kevin "Tex" Houston             http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html
> Webmaster                       http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html
> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and
> Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

Whats this non-member submission stuff?

Kyle