Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years

[Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>]

KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/15/98 11:44:47 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
wrote:
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
wrote:
> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM,
zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

> >> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
> >> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
> >> >> >still wait for breaktroughs.
> >> >> 
> >> >> We don't actually need sustained, 
> >> >>
> >> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
> >> >may lead to a viable starship engine? 
> >> 
> >> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface
transports.  No
> >> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question.
At a high
> >> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load,
which is
> >> handelable.
> >> 
> >> >I doubt it.
> >> 
> >> Why?
> >> 
> >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word
"micro".
> >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big 
> >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
> >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
/¯\_/¯\
´       >-2 waves
\_/¯\_/
> 
> Its all a mater of scale.  Scale wise the power to weight ratio of a
1G
> starships not that much more then that of a hot sports car able to
accell at
> nearly 1G. The power of the vibrations should be equally handelable.
> 
> 
> 
> >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
> >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
> >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
> >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
> >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
> >> 
> >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser 
> >> fusion systems looked good.  Natural since we never built 
> >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year
timetable 
> >> it seems reasonable.  Its not like
> >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
> >> 
> >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit.
Do you really think that we'll have
not-too-power-eating-plasma-engines in ONLY 50 years??
Maybe with pinchers, but it'd be better to launch simple particules
you don't have to carry, like hydrogen: ionize'em, de ionize'em at the
end, use supraconductors, after all, it's almost 0 K outside. 
==
Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!!

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com