[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*Subject*: starship-design: Back from the wed*From*: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton)*Date*: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:35:21 -0700*Reply-To*: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton)*Sender*: owner-starship-design

Gee - can't a guy go get married these days without coming home to hundreds of emails?? I have to confess I didn't read them all in depth, but I liked the recent idea of the Fuel/Sail, building the sail out of fusion materials. It got me thinking about using the sail for reaction mass for slowing down, and our months-old discussion about momentum/energy (P/E) ratios came to mind. (For all I know this has been discussed at length, so forgive me if I'm going over old ground) Photons have a very inefficient P/E, compared to massive particles, and I started thinking about catching beamed photons, and then transferring the energy into a massive particle, and shooting it forward. Assuming no energy is lost, the massive particle would have a higher P/E, and therefore you would lose more momentum to the particle (for a given energy) than you would gain from catching the photon and using it in the first place. The key equation is: E^2 = (K + mc^2)^2 = P^2 c^2 + M^2 c^4 This holds for both photons (M=0) and massive particles, where E is the total energy (including rest mass) and K is the kinetic energy (really all we care about) This simplifies to P^2 = K^2 / c^2 + 2 K M At this point I'm going to define E as the kinetic energy, and we can get replace those K's: P = [(E^2 / c^2) + 2 E M]^0.5 So if you "catch" some beamed energy (say 'E' joules) you gain a momentum of E/c. But if you can convert that energy to kinetic energy, and accelerate part of the sail forward, you can get a net backwards momentum out of the whole deal. If you want to have a net momentum loss of 2E/c (the same as your momentum gain for a reflecting sail), it turns out that every particle you accelerate forward must have a kinetic energy equal to exactly 1/4 of its rest mass, so M = 4E/c^2, and P = - 3E/c (backwards). Adding this to the E/c you gained from catching the beamed energy in the first place gives you a momentum loss of exactly - 2E/c; the same as you momentum gain during the accleration portion of the journey. Of course, things get more complicated once the ship starts losing mass. Fortunately, it works somewhat in our favor; less momentum is needed to slow the ship down when it's lighter. Turns out that accelerating a "mere" half of the total ship mass with the M/E=4/c^2 mass/energy ratio will slow the ship down from a third of lightspeed. Faster trips will require a larger Sail Mass / Ship Mass ratio. (I didn't do this relativistically, but I know some of you have those equations somewhere...) The biggest problem with losing mass (besides whittling away the sail without destroying it) will be that the sail will get too small too fast: we won't be able to "catch" all the energy once we start using up the sail as reaction mass. The amount of energy we need will drop in proportion to the mass of the ship as a whole, but the amount of energy we can catch (due to sail area) will drop faster, as the mass of the sail alone. However, given that we are talking about mass ratios of 400, these two masses are pretty much identical; with a sail that big the two values drop should drop pretty much at the same rate. So now the deceleration problem simply involves converting light energy to particle energy. Clearly the parabola-shaped sail will reflect the beamed power to an onboard engine. But not only do you have to have a decent conversion efficiency, but we're talking about huge amounts of energy we have to manipulate. Even if the "energy storage time" between receiving the power and shooting it off is very small, the net power the engine would have to handle would be terrible. Clearly a "passive-engine" scenario like the plasma mirror would be simplest, but we have to give a lot of photons to each proton to get the energy/mass ratio to come out right. Each proton will need 230GeV imparted to it, and it seems unlikely we can give a proton that much energy from a microwave beam without an "active" engine, where the energy distribution is manipulated by an accelerating structure. For mm-sized microwaves, this is 10^15 photons per proton! Perhaps starting off with a lower proton energy would be okay; if you transfer all the energy, the slower the protons the more you slow down, paradoxically enough. The problem with slow protons, though, is that you need a LOT of them to do the job of a few fast ones. If you shoot off too much mass too slow you'll run out of sail material before you can slow down enough... Run with this, someone... Ken Wharton "No brakes? Well, no point in steering now" (Bob MacKenzie, Strange Brew)

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: starship-design: Back from the wed***From:*jimaclem@juno.com

- Prev by Date:
**RE: starship-design: New Idea from non member** - Next by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Back from the wed** - Prev by thread:
**RE: starship-design: Beamed power** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Back from the wed** - Index(es):