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

Re: RE: starship-design: Timothy's beamed power paper

> From KellySt@aol.com Sun Jul 27 19:05:52 1997
> In a message dated 7/27/97 8:50:36 AM, (Zenon Kulpa) wrote:
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> 
> >> In a message dated 7/25/97 12:54:35 PM, (Zenon Kulpa) wrote:
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> >And assuming you will be able to find the beam in the vastness 
> >> >of space...
> >> 
> >> Beam is locked in a straight line for the flight duration.  
> >> If you drift off, you'll know where you left it.
> >> 
> >Will there be a nice striped poles along it to mark its course?
> >More importantly, it will not be straight - as we have calculated 
> >some time ago, it will veer to the sides by hundreds (or thousands) 
> >of kilometers every time some of the transmitter maintenance crew 
> >sneezes or a stray comet wanders nearby..
> Well if you have a fleet of transmitter stations scattered over hundreds of
> thousand, to millions of miles the crew screw-up should be handelable.  And
> you only are firing the beam for a few years, so the comets can be avoided 
> by scheduling the flight.
I am skeptical if it will be so easy.
Anyway, trying this technologay on a robotic probe
before an attempt with manned ships seems necessary to me.

> As for the pole.  Make the center of the beam have a noticable carriour
> signal.  Track the ship on that.
Huh? We are not talking about losing the beam,
but about chasing the beam from outside.
When the ship is outside the beam, 
it is even more outside the carrier signal...
How can it track that?

> >> >-- Zenon
> >> >
> >> >PS. Kelly, what happened to your charming spelling?
> >> >    I'm rely worrid about yor helth or somthing...  ;-))   -- Z
> >> 
> >> Should be worse with me typing these at night in bad light.  
> >> (desk lamp burned out.)  ;)
> >> 
> >Oh, just this is my problem - 
> >it should be (much) worse, but isn't. 
> >Why? (wondered Zenon).
> Dumb luck? Perhaps I'm statistically more likely to accidentally hit the
> right key, then on purpose?  ;)
Highly improbable...
Your spelling exhibited marked pattern, unlikely to be reproduced
by pure (not speaking about dumb) luck.
But don't worry - it seems you are recovering already...  ;-))

-- Zenon