Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

I>  
>  > Subj:   RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
>  >  Date: 1/20/00 6:57:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>  >  From: Chris.Walker@bskyb.com (Walker, Chris)
>  >  To:   STAR1SHIP@aol.com ('STAR1SHIP@aol.com')
>  >  
>  >  > -----Original Message-----
>  >  > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com]
>  >  > Sent: 20 January 2000 03:18
>  >  > To: chithree@boo.net
>  >  > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
>  >  > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
>  >  > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm
>  >  > 
>  >  > 
>  >  > See above link to faster than light engine that can be built 
>  >  > today and  requires no future discovery or future technology, I know 
>  >  > because I (man of many letters after name) invented it.
>  >  
>  >  Hi Thomas,
>  >  
>  >  I've read the page and have a few questions and comments - I'd be 
> grateful
>  >  if you could answer them please.
>  >  
>  >  (1) "...the operating temperatures of the plasma contained range from 
> below
>  >  the melting point of the radioactive metals used to the temperatures of 
a
>  >  blue white star"
>  >  
>  >  What material do you intend to use to contain the fuel at "blue white 
> star"
>  >  temperatures?

Hey Cris,

>  Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast 
> iron to titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting 
> point is not important as the temperature of the plasma heat that is 
transferred 
> by radiant, convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed 
by 
> the selected propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is 
> further insulated by the steam (One of the best heat insulaters)generated 
> when water as propellant is used. 
>  
>  In lab, place papercup with water over candle and boil water to observe 
that 
> the flash point of the paper is lower than the temperature of the flame (
> plasma). The heat paths are controlled to carry the ignition heat away from 
> the casing.
>  
>  >  
>  >  (2) "A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive 
> metal
>  >  found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..."
>  >  
>  >  Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material 
> there
>  >  is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either 
> require
>  >  a human presence, or a very complex piece of machinery (if it's an 
> unmanned
>  >  probe).
>  
>  You can find metals nearly any where.
>  The breeder(fusion) reactor to produce the fuel from ordinary metals is a 
> simple machine and fusion device. For the fission reactions starting the 
> breeder require I maintain a seed supply and use only unspent fuel disks to 
> start the reactions producing the radioactive metal isotopes. Breeder 
> reactors by design produce from fusion reactions plutonium 239, and 
americium 
> 241 from the base metal u235. 
>  
>  >  
>  >  (3) "A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile 
> collisions
>  >  with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by reducing the 
> cross
>  >  section of the craft..."
>  >  
>  >  Even reducing the cross-section, if you travel at high sublight speeds
>  >  you're going to get a *lot* of matter hitting the front of your ship. (I
>  >  appreciate this is just one part of the solution though).
>  
>  Reduced cross section and the rain drop effect from high velocity 
eliminate 
> the majority of collisions. I invented the electric armor (claim 6) as a 
part 
> of the total solution to reduce the risk of collection and when hit the 
armor 
> closes the jagged hole edges allowing self sealing or manual patching to be 
> more effective and give added repair time before life support systems fail.
>  
>  >  
>  >  (4) "By anticipating the collision of solid matter using conventional
>  >  technology (such as radar or metal detectors)..."
>  >  
>  >  This gets harder as you approach light speed, given that the reaction 
> time
>  >  available to you will decrease. Also, how effective will radar be if 
your
>  >  spacecraft exceeds 'c' (as you claim it might)?
>  
>  Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light 
speed 
> to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds 
> as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral 
> particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just 
> fine. 
>  
>  >  
>  >  (5) "...a heating electric current may be generated through the shape 
> memory
>  >  effect metal to resist the original penetration at the time of impact 
by 
> the
>  >  force of the spring back effect plus the thickness of the metal, 
thereby,
>  >  creating an electric armor of my own invention." 
>  >  
>  >  Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you 
would
>  >  heat the shape memory alloy so that it changes shape just at the time of
>  >  impact? How many impacts per second do you expect the shield will 
receive
>  >  high sublight velocities - too many for the SMA shield system to cope 
> with?
>  
>  In Lab take shape memory alloy wire stretched through but not fastened 
> across two poles, With hook on spring scale deform the wire measuring the 
> deforming force required. Next do the same with the electric shape 
restoring 
> force applied. The difference is considerable as the second greater 
deforming 
> force required is measured. The reaction is not instantaneous but very 
close.
>  
>  For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall 
> form SR momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The 
> collision is readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity.
>  
>  
>  >  
>  >  (6) "It is more cost efficient, more reliable, safer and faster than any
>  >  previous invention chemical or atomic."
>  >  
>  >  Well, it involves potentially large quantities of radioactive material, 
> so
>  >  to say that it is safer than any previous chemical or atomic invention 
is
>  >  not strictly true - I believe that ion propulsion is safer than your 
> atomic
>  >  propulsion method. 
>  
>  Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion 
> propulsion pollutes the atmosphere of earth. The amount of pollutant 
exhaust 
> to propel any given mass to some velocity is far less than your ion drive. 
> Pollution in high radioactive deep space is simply of no concern. The ship 
> crew is well protected from radiation by the distance from the source and 
the 
> inert propellant shield between.  
>  
>  The extreme slow speed of ion drives compared to mine make the crew spend 
> far more time in radioactive space than I advise and is the most unsafe of 
> the two designs.
>    
>  >  Think of the political problems as well if you want to launch a 
> spacecraft
>  >  powered by this propulsion system from Earth - look at the fuss that was
>  >  kicked up about the Cassini probe.
>  
>  I launch from lunar orbit to bypass the fuss and occasional terrorist 
> missile.
>  
>  >  
>  >  If I've misunderstood any of the above, I'm sure you'll let me know ;)
>  
>  I will, though have no desire to teach the mistaught ';=)>

Yours was good response to issues with good questions.
Have I answered them to your satisfaction?

Tom

>  
>  Regards,
>  Tom.
>  
>  >  
>  >  Chris
>  >  
>  >