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

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*Subject*: starship-design: My two cents*From*: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton)*Date*: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:07:31 -0700*Reply-To*: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton)*Sender*: owner-starship-design

Steve and Timothy have had this argument before. I think the misunderstanding is stemming from what they mean by minimizing "Energy". If you try to minimize TOTAL ship-energy = Kinetic Energy + Rest Mass Energy then Steve is right; photons are best. If you try to minimize the Kinetic Energy you need (i.e. assume that mass is "free"), then Timothy is right: there is an optimum exhaust speed. So which is correct? That depends on the technology. If it's "easy" to turn mass into energy, then they're basically equivalent, and Steve is right. If it's very difficult to turn mass into energy, then rest mass is much easier to come by than the kinetic energy, so you try to minimize Kinetic Energy alone, and Timothy is right. So, as I understand it, right now Timothy is right about there being an "optimum" exhaust speed because it's tough to turn mass into energy. But given that antimatter might make this easy in the future, Steve's slant could very well be correct by the time we build the spaceship. Ken

**Follow-Ups**:**starship-design: My two cents***From:*Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Tugs** - Next by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Deceleration scheme** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Fun with Math** - Next by thread:
**starship-design: My two cents** - Index(es):