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

Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity

>  > -----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.

CAUTION In the below lab experiment demonstrating plasma heat containment, 
please use a plain paper cup with water boiled over an open candle flame.  A 
waxed paper cup may outgass vapors which ignites the cup.

>  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?

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 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 
>  found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..."
>  Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material 
>  is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either 
>  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 main tain 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 

>  (5) "...a heating electric current may be generated through the shape 
>  effect metal to resist the original penetration at the time of impact by 
>  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 ';=)>


>  Chris