[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver
In a message dated 12/4/97 9:27:13 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, email@example.com wrote:
>>>You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech".
>>>Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea.
>>>It doesn't require exotic fusion technology.
>>However the drop sail/reflector had serious problems and would probably not
>>be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship.
>> Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago.
>The technical problems with Forward's pure sail system are dwarfed by
>the technical challenge of building the astronomical beam emitter
>system in the first place.
Not really, the latter is just a question of scale. We could certainly build
it, we just could afford it. Forwards system is probably technically
impossible regardless of cost.
>Consider that even his proposed 1000km lens for the smallest of his
>Starwisp proposals is already ludicrously beyond anything we can
>seriously think of building in the foreseeable future.
>>>However, the sheer size of that "brute force" is inconceivably massive.
>>So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied
>>cost are critical problems.
>No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its
At the time it was proposed and designed our best boosters were failing to
lift 30 pound objects to orbit. The Sat-v was rated at 220,000 pounds to
orbit. 4 orders of magnitude performance boost out of the same integrated
system. (I'm assuming you don't consider the "only a couple orders of
The sail systems could just use fleets of (hopefully by then) 'standard'
orbital microwave power sats.
>The manned sail system is more like a dozen orders of magnitude beyond
>what we've ever done in critical areas.
>>>Especially when you consider that a modified design would only require
>>>a fraction of a percent of the effort.
>>But as I listed before, and went over with numbers, your modified design
>>wouldn't save a dramatic amount of power (possibly none), but would add a
>>serious intercept problem (scatering your hundreds of fuel packages over
>>about a light year and a half).
>You did not. You didn't even read my modified design (much less
>As I stated it, the power requirement was reduced by two orders of
>magnitude. If you want to dispute it, then at least read the
>details to my modified design.
I did, and responded a couple weeks back. You refused to read it past my
"assuming you use 200 fuel packets" line at the start.
Lets just drop this argument, its going no where.
> _____ Isaac Kuo