Re: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/17/97 12:26:23 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>>>>>However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100,
>>>>>it's easily worth it.  Consider that the laser will weigh many
>>>>>magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design.
>
>>>>Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with.  One: given the major delta V
>>>>requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are
close
>>>>enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking
about
>>>>fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift.
>
>>>So what?  The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle
>>>light _days_ of lateral maneuvering.  Remember that this ship is
>>>using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200
>>>intercepts.  To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of
>>>maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri,
>>>4 light years away).
>
>>>I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than
>>>would ever be the case.
>
>>I'm not clear how many fuel packets you expect to launch.  Presumably
>>hundreds.
>
>Why assume when I explicitely write exactly how many are proposed?
>As I stated in my original e-mail, 200 fuel sails.  As I state above
>in the quoted text, 200 intercepts.
>
>Please, if you aren't even reading what I write, do not bother
>responding.
>
>
>I refuse to even read the rest of your e-mail until you start reading
>to what you're responding to.
>
>What a waste of time

<whinneee>

Did I complain when you didn't remember any of the details of fuel/sail?  <Oh
and I gave you numbers in the last one.>

Kelly