Re: starship-design: Suspended animation.

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/6/00 6:54:59 PM, STAR1SHIP writes:

>In a message dated 1/6/00 9:11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, KellySt@aol.com
>writes:
>
><< Hey folks.  Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation.
> Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks
> usedto use to make Zombies.  They show promis in use for hibernation.
> The same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and
> don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for 
> something like space travel.
>  >>
>
>Seems like there would be to much to do aboard a space craft to even want
>hibernation. Picking landing site, training colonist with colony skills,
>scanning scenery, Solving problems. Any star system colonization would
>require independence from earth and also require that reproductive quality
>of life in an environment of possible enclosed dimensions protected from
>the elements so that colony would succeed and grow and grow even if landfall
>was in an uninhabitable place.

True, however with trip times to even the closest star system of over a 
decade at best speed we can manage, storing the crew for the flight could be 
a big advantage.

Colonization of planets seems very unlikly.  Even colonization of a star 
system is unlikely without a huge population to support all the differnt 
speciallties needed to keep the infastructure of a civilization runing.  With 
trip time so long resuply will be chancy.


>A long time span journey solution has already been found by Einstein who
>showed that should your craft near speed of light relative to earth, time
>became dilated. At 50% dilation a journey a distance of 4 light years takes
>two years ship time giving a velocity of twice light speed. Closer to light
>speed, crossing galaxies and even the distance between them can be 
accomplished
>in days of ship time.  Better money be spent on engines capable of 
approaching
>light speed, -- like the one in the link below. 

Unfortunatly near light speed engines are a long way off.  Bu then so much of 
our basic science could change, its hard to guess at what we'ld be doing.



>Independence from earth
>means that the eons passed on earth during the few days are not important
>so distance traveled divided by observer time giving observed velocity
>with a c limit is meaningless. Unless of course your motivation for the
>journey is the parade of family and friends on return to earth. 

Earth is going to be funding these flights.  If you don't return  with 
results withing a couple decades it would be prudent of them to hold off the 
launch a few decades.


>Since velocity can exceed light speed in the part of the example trip given
>there clearly exists in the universe a counter example proving a light
>speed limit for rockets as nonscientific nonsense and defines the limit
>is on what can be observed and not what may be doable. The is no known
>reason to shut the engines accelerating at one g for 355 days off just
>because the rocket becomes unobservable.
>
>The rocket becomes unobservable when velocity exceeds light speed because
>observer light traveling towards earth relative to the rocket is in fact
>traveling away from the earth with a negative velocity so does not hit
>retina to get observed.

No, rockets can't boost past or to light speed.  Virtual mass makes the ships 
seem effectivly infinate in weight.  Also the power needed to get even near 
half light speed exceeds what we can do with known systems.  So we need to 
wait until we get better ideas.


>No paradox there but basic physical science calculating and measuring the
>velocity of an object thrown from a car towards the starting point when
>the velocity of the car wrt (with respect to) staring point is faster than
>the velocity wrt car of the object thrown back to starting point. The object
>simply does not reach the starting point. (neglect air resistance).

Relatavistic speeds don't work that way.


>Regards,
>Tom

Kelly
Kelly