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

*To*: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu*Subject*: Re: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design*From*: KellySt@aol.com*Date*: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:45:43 EST*Reply-To*: KellySt@aol.com*Sender*: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu

X-From: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Clayton Parker) To: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Kelly, > -----Original Message----- ===== > You missed the part of my statement about fuel constraint. A > given weight of > fuel, only has the energy to accelerate the ship to a given delta-V. It > doesn't make much difference (speed wise) if it burns all the > fuel quickly, or > slowly. So I figure at 1 g my fusion systems could get you about > 4-5 months of total thrust. No I didn't miss it. I wasn't holding the mass of the fuel constant, I was adding MORE fuel to compensate which is whay I said it required more engine since adding fuel increases vehicle mass, in order to maintain a constant acceleration you have to increase thrust, which means you consume more fuel, etc. but it does work out in the math. I think I figured out that to get a .4C delta-V you needed something like a 40-100 to 1 fuel ratio. (hence my interest in a no tank fuel). That only gets you about 4 months at 1G. Magnifiing that to get more delta-v would require stagering fuel quantities! The engines might need to wiegh an order of mag more then the unfueled ship! Kelly

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design***From:*"L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: solar sail** - Next by Date:
**starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 Probs., Roton Rollout PR, SAU 80** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Re: starship-design: Modular Ship Design** - Next by thread:
**RE: RE: starship-design: Modular Ship Design** - Index(es):