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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver

KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/1/97 7:35:19 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>>In a message dated 11/29/97 5:54:21 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:
>>>>KellySt@aol.com wrote:

>>>>The V in VLBI stands for "Very".  What that means is that the elements
>>>>are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other
>>>>within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength.

>>>>The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure"
>>>>to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary
>>>>with VLBI.

>>>A few sats parked on lunar soil is hardly a structure "rigidly
>>>locked to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the
>>>working wavelength."

>>Yes it is, actually.  It's nearly perfect--and among the best we
>>can hope for in the Solar System.

>Fixed within a 1/4 wavelength of light?  Thermal warpage due to day night
>cycle and tidal effects would prevent that.

No it wouldn't.  That just means you need micrometer-like servos
to provide fine adjustment to the position.  Which realistically
you need anyway.

Thermal warpage and tidal effects are very slow and steady, which
means they can be accounted for with slow and steady adjustments.
Equally important is that they have a limited range of effect,
which means the worm gears used don't need to be overly long.

>>>>Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example,
>>>>I'll give another--small arms.  Today's military small arms don't
>>>>significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in
>>>>improved reliability.

>>>Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point
>>>significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago.

>>Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small
>>arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic
>>impact on logistics.  (It also allows carrying more ammunition and
>>weight).  Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced,
>>it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit

>>However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has
>>prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms.
>>Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but
>>at the expense of performance.

>In performance I was reffering to accuracy and range.

These are only two aspects of performance in small arms.  Much like
number of seats and height are just two aspects of cars.

>The size of the bullet
>is based on logistics and weight trad offs, and the blast power by the
>tolerances of the solder.

If we increased performance by having rounds 1% of the
current typical size which were equally effective, the advantages
would be enormous.

We haven't.

>But none of this related to the starship design!!

You suggested that a few decades was always sufficient to vastly
improve technological capabilities.

This simply isn't always the case, and I was merely trying to
demonstrate counterexamples.

If you were paying any attention, you'd have remembered.
    _____     Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
/___________\ "Mari-san...  Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/  ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi