[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity
In a message dated 2/18/00 3:54:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > There is also no "flexing" cycles to consider causing fatigue because
> > armor does not deform and than change back to the original shape.
> > The physical stress is on the colliding particle.
> No thermal fatigue cycling then, either?
Thanks for the input. I had not thought about it. I know that aluminum wire
deteriorates with current constantly applied voltage making it unsuitable for
homes in 10 years time so I will rely on your trade skills and make sure that
I test for that during the engineering phase of development. The stress is
on the electrical field holding the electric armor molecules in position so
the current being constantly changed would not have fatigue but it may be
possible the stress could be induced into the molecular bonds in an unknown
manner so I will test for that.
> > The consequences you fear seem to assume that I claim to have a
> > craft that goes from launch to light speed or greater in a very
> > short amount of time ... A 105 ton craft launched from the moon
> > and misdirected towards earth would leave a very small impact crater.
> Ah, a misunderstanding. The consquences I was referring to was a load of
> radioactive material being deposited at high speed on the Earth (if the
> craft was misdirected), not the effects of the craft's physical impact. I
> mentioned it originally because you referred to your design as being "the
> safest" - I questioned this given that it used a radioactive fuel source.
Well, radioactive is a scary word but since my engine can safely move all
toxic radioactive byproducts on earth to a lower solar orbit, It could be a
worthwhile and reasonable risk. The fore mentioned 105 ton craft, to propel a
5 ton payload to reach twice light speed need only convert 1/2 ton of
americium to energy to give the energy propeling the exhaust to the required
velocity. Such a lump would land intact and be locatable and reusable. To
place all earth radioactive toxins in orbit and decrease the solor orbit
velocity to where they drop nearer the sun in perpetual lower orbit would
require maybe a little more matter conversion doing the math in my head.
It should be a safety required launch as it is only a matter of time before
terrorist figure out that atomic reactors and toxic radioactive dump sites
make ideal targets for small homemade atomic bombs and other attacks to
increase their devastating short and long term effects by bypassing "all"
known safety systems except low solar orbit. Germans tried to dispose of
radioactive barium waste from reactors by injecting by rocket into the high
atmosphere over the US soutwest as it was luminesent and allow testing to
"see weather patterns"
That plus the US government labeling what should be unallowable safety
radioactive releases as planned waste (no waste plan) and scheduled releases
(vents scheduled to release radioactive toxins with over pressure) can only
work on the public for a short amount of time as you can fool all of the
people some of the time, some of the people some of the time but you cannot
fool all the people all of the time.
> > Well, If you have net meeting 3.01 with video cam and mic and since I
> > high speed cable modem, I would offer to give you a personalized tour
> > on my star ship and laboratories, but I usually reserve that for the
> > Would Chris be short for Christine? :)
> No - so I guess I'll have to turn down the offer of that date ;)
Oh well, what a shame the technology fields I found so exciting are nearly
devoid of qualified women. The idea of lifetime voyages without equal
numbers of fairer sex may condemn any star travel as impracticable. That
imbalance I have no solution for 'cept take as many family and friends as
possible since cost per pound to stars would be reasonable with my work horse
Any other reasonable suggestions as star travel is no place for girlie boys?:)