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

Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

In a message dated 3/16/00 7:27:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

> STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote:
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Since your waiting on earth for someone else to provide you a good 
> reusable
>  > orbital launch vehicle, it would be reasonable to assume you think like 
>  > does of space ships as high flying airplanes. I think of real space 
> as
>  > deep-space ships.
>  > 
>  I think of space-ships as both near ( interplanetary ) and far ( deep )
>  space craft.

Good thinking. I have no objection to you using my deep space craft engine 
for solar planetary exploration.
>  > With your attitude, you will remain ground bounded referred to 
> derogatorily
>  > by "deep spacers" as "a ground bounder." It would seem that the title of 
> this
>  > mailing list is misnamed starship-design.
>  I hope not... How will I ever see my 3.125 square miles of Mars.

Well, if I get there first with my ship built of nonpublic or nonnational 
funding, then by the legal principle of imminent domain I will declare the 
Mars territory "mine" legally voiding prior claims such as yours. For a hefty 
fee I may allow you to see your 3.125 square miles.

>  > 
>  > Making for the moment the silly assumption that my engine will not do as 
>  > claim, I propose the following open ended proposition to all list 
>  >
>  > 
>  > Concerned,
>  > Pretend we have a working engine to take to the stars at a constant 
>  >
>  This is false statement in my belief, but I don't have the math skills
>  to prove you wrong. 

Those Ph.D's with max math skills have failed to prove me wrong.
Attempts are easily debunked. 1-g is a design specification I used met by my 
engine. It provides an artificial gravity passengers are conformable with. 
Coasting to the stars while flopping around in zero g for years is not 
desirable. Artificial gravity produced by a rotational axis pod makes one 
dizzy in time when the radius from the center is less than a mile. Great 
diameters are possible, However collision by increased surface area is not 

>Propulsion is not the limiting factor, rather
>  clearing
>  the path of planetary debris, through stellar systems. I am guessing
>  this
>  will place a limit of < .01 C unless a bastard jet design becomes
>  practical,
>  with <.25C for a bastard jet.

Poor guess, I believe you are referring to a Bussard ram jet engine. The 
engine specification for  1950's Bussard's invention have been significantly 
improved since by many better engine designs and most significantly my 1989 
invention of a plasma rocket engine.

Had you training in probability and statistics there is effect called the 
"rain drop effect" proving the faster you travel between two points the less 
wet you get from particle "rain drop" collisions. Most of space matter 
collidable with  has the source of the sun as source cause. Effects reduce by 
the square with each doubling of the distance from the source. (poorly said 
;=). The deep space between stars and galaxies is mostly empty of matter and 
radiation (small background radiation mostly). That star light arrives from 
billions of light years distance without obstruction is convincing evidence 
and proof of this. 

>  > To get public funding for a star journey requires a complete package as 
> did
>  > the programs for orbiting man around the earth or landing man on the moon
>  > prior to construction.
>  > 
>  > Pretend that soon someone will invent a working starship engine, 
>  > heat, light, water artificial gravity, and a protective shell as (I 
> to
>  > have already invented), What can this group provide as content?
>  > 
>  > Can this group fill the empty payload space with matter to say provide 
> a
>  > mixed sex crew of 20 for a simple non returning journey whose mission is 
>  > lifelong journey on the ship, or to a star planetoid so barren that an
>  > underground cave must be adapted air tight for colonization as a minimum
>  > requirement till crew life's end?
>  >
>  That is the risk the explores take. 50 people is the biological minimum
>  number
>  of people to survive on the short term.

Educated guess but I question the credibility based on past experience in 
exploring new worlds across the Bearing straights, and ships coming to 
America, migration of human and animals to unknown earthly frontiers. Do you 
have a source for your info as it is close to the educated quess I made? I 
would be interested in closer examination of the minimum requirement figures. 
Many prior misssions colonizing America with higher numbers have failed to 
survive for one reason or another.

Until I know better or am shown other wise, The list starts with 20 
individuals with me as the commander (my engine and my bonafide license to 
drive it). 
>  > 
>  > What would be needed as beginning supplies should they find a planet to 
> land
>  > on that the crew can prosper and multiply?.
>  > 
>  > What technology exists today that you would be conformable living the
>  > remainder of your life in?
>  > 
>  > Recycled garbage and human waste as food does not appeal to me, though I 
> am
>  > no against feeding it to the plants and animals on the soil (for export 
>  > barren world) on board. What seed stock and frozen embryos and DNA 
> clonable
>  > samples and soil matter reduced (not containing obtainable ground rock) ?
>  > 
>  Nor does green- algae appeal either, a few more items in the food web
>  could not 
>  hurt. 

I welcome your menu suggestions. : List please.

>The reason that a closed living environment looks complex, is that
>  we
>  are useto getting things free since Cave Man times... Need a new stone
>  knife,
>  throw out the old, and find a new rock. One does not fuse all the broken
>  stone
>  chips together to make a new stone. 

Well said. We need to find a new rock (earth). What type of closed travel 
environment would you suggest.
>  > Assume complete independence from earth (information travels to slow 
> between
>  > stars to be useful-still pretending my FTL engine not workable) so what 
> s
>  > of library knowledge, minimal trade crafts, food, and plants, soil and
>  > animals would you take to the stars.
>  >
>  That is a hard question, with no easy answers.
>  This is a job for "Bio-Dome" man.

Can you give source knowledge of parts list of the present bio dome. Atomic 
subs that stay underwater water for up to a years may provide a good starting 
place for a list of supplies life support systems by weight and item 
description and a comfortable prison space requirement provides a volume 
guess. What is the best terrarium technology. Extrapolation numbers to the 50 
years life (assuming the starting age of 20) can give a working diagram of 
payload system I requested. Can you provide detailed list or link to the info?

>  > 
>  > List by weight next to the item.
>  > The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine
>  > specs make the engine to power such a workable mission.
>  > 
>  > Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members.
>  There is a difference? grin.


>  > Will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming?
>  > 
>  Yes you will because most men want to stay home and grumble.

I am looking for the computer code (HTML), for now, used by some to cause the 
reader of an e-mail or newsgroup post that cause the reader to be transferred 
by hyperlink to a site Example--my cybership starship without his clicking on 
a link. Benign kidnapping and transport to my site :=). Do you know of the 
>  > Engine aside, can you draw a working diagram of the payload system that 
>  > buildable with present technology or do I have to provide everything to 
>  > credible?
>  > 
>  > Remember the fickle public funding freaks require a complete list of 
> of
>  > a working package with no unknowns.
>  > 
>  > I expect the members of this group to have done some original homework as
>  > regards the above. If not then perhaps a list name change to star
>  > travel-is-impossible@lists.. would be appropriate.
>  > 
>  > I am not the general public and am conformable with unknowns you may 
> provide.
>  > Please separate applied technology (conventional known technology) from
>  > theoretical (hypothesis) in your response. Please take some care with 
> syntax
>  > usage (time case of past, present, future).
>  >
>  Since I am a computer programmer ,I only have no great technology skills
>  many of the fields required, but just a curiosity in many of the fields.
>  As a hobbies I like to design digital projects, but I have no cash for
>  any large projects like a 24 bit TTL computer from only logic gates and
>  flip-flops. Say 500 TTL packages. 

Interesting but no cash is not a limiting factor for large projects. The 
first rule of engineering is that all machines are expandable or reducible in 
size depending on how big or small we can make the parts. I overcame the cash 
requirement it to research and develop my atomic rocket.

In your topic of super computers, I used no cash while I worked for Seagate 
engineering reliability lab in 1993. My 386 workstation PC was inked to 100 - 
386,486 pc CPUs stripped of their monitors and keyboards, novel linked and 
power supply enhanced each CPU to handle 6 hard drives (600 total) ranging in 
size from 300 MB to 1.2 gigabyte. I built the thing and wrote the automation 
programs to test the drives and each was blinking constantly and sending data 
to my CPU unit for processing. Many trillions of bytes of data daily were 
analyzed for error and reliability data and a printed report produced each 
day. Small potatoes now, but it was one of the first super computers to 
handle that amount of data daily.  I automated so well, I could almost hit a 
key each morning when I walked in to start retesting and then hit a key to 
produce the printed summary report of the previous nights test (already 
compiled by bat file and printed. I lost that job when production was sent to 
Singapore and now many Chinese do the same task... ;:)

>.Now back to the topic at hand.
>  I think we need have both a star-ship and interplanetary design
>  mailing lists. I believe in planetary and later stellar travel
>  other wise I would be in the Gock_for_Spock mailing lists.
>  Now is the Golden Age of Star travel... 
>  Ben.

An interplanetary designed engine will not always work for stellar travel. A 
galactic and stellar ship will always work well for our solar system 
planetary travel. Why not focus resources on one (my galactic engine)?

>  > Regards,
>  > Tom

 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm">Plasma Rocket Engine</