[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: starship-design: FTL Navigation
In a message dated 8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP
writes:
Subj:Re: starship-design: FTL Navigation
Date:8/23/01 5:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:STAR1SHIP
To:stevev@efn.org
In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org
writes:
FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore
it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation".
You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says
we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel,
right?
Steve,
I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but
you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron
who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it
privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion
Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or
sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to
prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other
credibility.
FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space
flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even
have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my
readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from
your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to
FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days
of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your
limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time.
Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion.
Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm
Other's neat stuff.......
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html
In a message dated 8/22/01 10:26:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org
writes:
FTL is physically meaningless for a variety of reasons, and therefore
it's similarly meaningless to talk about "FTL navigation".
You did note the part of the mailing list welcome message that says
we're not particularly interested in speculating about FTL travel,
right?
Steve,
I did and that is correct that you are not interested in discussing FTL, but
you cannot speak for all list members who have an interest in FTL such as Ron
who I replied to private mail and offered myself as a believer to discuss it
privately. Neither NASA Advanced propulsion concepts group nor Jet Propulsion
Laboratory has any trouble discussing FTL nor do sci.physics or
sci.physics.relativity newsgroups but there are always skeptics unable to
prove a sub c limit that also stubbornly fail to establish any other
credibility.
FTL aside, I use this list for the valuable links to information on space
flight craft requirements of sublight speed I apply to FTL engines and even
have a site link to this alternative science list so do speculate that my
readers can hear both sides to make informed decisions and also benefit from
your "Lunar" website for sub c craft considerations as any manned flight to
FTL would be at near 1 g acceleration for comfort and therefore have 355 days
of flight time at sub c at the start and finish of the journey where your
limitations are applicable so useful to me for a limited time.
Thanks for your prompt response and alternative opinion.
Tom
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm
Other's neat stuff.......
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/warp.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian/applets/Rocket/Voyage.html
http://home.sunrise.ch/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html
http://www.geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html