From VM Thu Oct 1 11:49:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1727" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "19:36:37" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "50" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1727
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12256
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA12125
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA15508; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:36:37 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810011836.TAA15508@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:36:37 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > | | H | H H
> > V V | V | |
> > H V H V V
> > | H | H
> > H V H | V | H
> > | | V H V |
> > V V | V
> > V
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - negative charges
> > -----------[ship]-----------
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + positive charges
> > H H H
> > | | H | H H
> > V V | V | |
> > H V H V V
> > | H | H
> > H V H | V | H
> > | | V H V |
> > V v | v
> > V
> >
>
> The problem is how to generate two monopolar fields? If you simply use two
> grids, your net thrust will be zero.
>
Statically probably yes.
Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way.
That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing
magnetic fields in electric motors.
> > Umm... Negative? By stripping away an electron, wouldn't it be
> > positive? If I'm wrong, then reverse the charges on the above drawing.
>
> I'm not sure, but I think you would end up with both positive and negative
> ions in roughly equal amounts.
>
Provided that hydrogen atoms are separated by some 1 cm or so
in interstellar space, we would rather get a thin plasma -
a rarified mixture od positive protons and negative electrons.
Which raises another doubt on the possibility for the above
design to work, since protons and electrons would give
opposite thrust to the ship.
Unless the mass difference between them would help...
-- Zenon Kulpa
From VM Thu Oct 1 11:55:08 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1137" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "19:43:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar travel-using vacuum..ur point?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1137
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18751
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18474
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA15514 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:43:21 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810011843.TAA15514@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar travel-using vacuum..ur point?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 19:43:21 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Lee,
> > What causes the bubble?
> > Nels
> >
>
> Something about the big bang and chaos and the way the universe formed. I
> don't remember the whole theory, but I know that they have been able to
> model it using chaos theory.
>
> Anyway, the Universe looks like a big tub full of soap bubbles with most of
> the stars and matter concentrated in the "film" of the bubbles. We aren't in
> the "film", we're in the middle of one. I've got a picture around here
> somewhere.
>
No - that "bubble" structure of the Universe you are speaking about
(attributed to the not well understood processes during the Big Bang)
is of much greater dimensions than interstellar spaces in our Galaxy -
it applies to the distribution of galaxies in the intergalactic space.
The bubbles within the Galaxy are much smaller and were
produced quite recently, during the development of the
structure of the Galaxy. As it was pointed out in another post,
they are attributed mostly to supernova explosions and other
events of this type, very, very tiny and local as compared to Big Bang.
-- Zenon Kulpa
From VM Thu Oct 1 13:47:49 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1363" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "15:33:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1363
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23693
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23647
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p228.gnt.com [204.49.89.228])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA19899;
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:39:23 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810011836.TAA15508@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:33:50 -0500
Zenon,
> Statically probably yes.
> Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way.
> That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing
> magnetic fields in electric motors.
I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic
fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off
in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved
globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to
remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work.
I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent
example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or
David can probably give you a better explanation than I can.
I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a
first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine.
In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up
to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to
put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind
of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least
thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old
astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty!
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 1 17:46:59 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1600" "Thu" "1" "October" "1998" "17:40:23" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1600
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04783
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04766
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante29.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante29.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.103])
by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id RAA23048 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante29.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id RAA80622 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810011738460.15380-100000@dante29.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
I would be very much interested in hearing about magnentic monopoles and
their potential use in starflight.
Best Regards
Nels Lindberg
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> Zenon,
>
>
> > Statically probably yes.
> > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way.
> > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing
> > magnetic fields in electric motors.
>
> I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic
> fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off
> in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved
> globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to
> remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work.
>
> I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent
> example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or
> David can probably give you a better explanation than I can.
>
> I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a
> first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine.
> In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up
> to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to
> put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind
> of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least
> thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old
> astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty!
>
> Lee
>
>
From VM Fri Oct 2 09:43:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1473" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "12:18:40" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1473
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA10362
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA10348
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id MAA16001; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:18:40 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810021118.MAA16001@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:18:40 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Statically probably yes.
> > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way.
> > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing
> > magnetic fields in electric motors.
>
> I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic
> fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off
> in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved
> globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to
> remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work.
>
> I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent
> example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or
> David can probably give you a better explanation than I can.
>
You probably misunderstood my post.
I did NOT propose to propel the ship with pulsing MAGNETIC fields -
I know the "stardrive" scheme would not work (we discussed it
some time ago here).
I wrote that Kevins electrostatic scheme may work with
pulsing ELECTRIC fields, making a rather loose analogy with
pulsing magnetic fields that do work in electric motors.
I am not sure it will work, anyway - the main objection is that
the ship floats within a cloud of charged particles
of BOTH polarities. But maybe due to different masses of
the particles with opposite charges (protons vs. electrons)
some thrust can be generated in some way...
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 2 09:43:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3614" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "21:50:09" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3614
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13284
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA13276
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 04:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne9p24.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.88]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08851 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 21:51:52 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3614BDEA.872ECD8@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000001bded7a$ccd758e0$e45931cc@lparker>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:50:09 +1000
Hi Group
L. Parker wrote:
> Zenon,
>
> > Statically probably yes.
> > Hence Kevin wrote about pulsing the fields in some way.
> > That might work, like the similar trick with pulsing
> > magnetic fields in electric motors.
>
> I read somewhere once about a stardrive that relied upon pulsed magnetic
> fields created by air-core magnets. The idea was to switch them on and off
> in such a way that the fields were not conserved locally, but were conserved
> globally so there was no violation of physics involved...I also seem to
> remember a column by John Cramer explaining why it wouldn't work.
It did work, except it was just a "photon" rocket. The pulsations produced
microwaves in a beam, thus providing thrust albeit very low thrust.
>
>
> I'm no physicist, but I don't think it will work. This is an excellent
> example of why they want to create or find a magnetic monopole. Steve or
> David can probably give you a better explanation than I can.
If you can make a monopole you have something even better than anti-matter. A
monopole is a one-dimensional space-time flaw and it induces PROTON DECAY. In
otherwords you can hit it with a beam of protons and get a stream of pions
moving at 0.943c coming out the otherside! Almost perfect space-drive, since you
don't need to fiddle with anti-matter! Any old junk will do, but hydrogen is
best.
A related system beams protons at a Q-Ball, which is a quark-aggregate that
might also induce a GUT reaction and cause Proton decay. Either one will do. The
best would be a lens of distorted space-time, rather than the microscopic specks
that monopoles and Q-Balls would manifest as.
>
>
> I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a
> first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine.
Unless we can crack GUT physics and induce proton-decay or higher-level GUT
phase-transitions. You're right - that's the best we can currently design, some
sort of fusion drive. I'd like to see a hybrid system, which should get a Ve of
~ +60,000 km/s. That'd be ideal. Using a magnetic-sail to deccelerate it'd be
able to reach ~ 0.5 c with a mass-ratio of ~ 20. We could generate anti-matter
using collectors constructed from a base on Mercury, but in a lower solar orbit
[0.01 - 0.1 AU], somehow stepping-up incident photons into the gamma-ray level,
then inducing pair-creation to get anti-protons.
> In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up
> to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to
> put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind
> of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least
> thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old
> astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty!
Personally I wouldn't want to send anyone until we could put them in stasis.
Just how? Some sort of nano-tech system could wrap them in diamond at a
molecular level, I'd guess, but maybe some sort of cryo-system will be more
likely. Ideas anyone?
> Lee
A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile space-colonies.
They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook system, and they'd
have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal thermal wrapping.
With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D reactions. Or
maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and that'd become a
great fuelling post. If you're going to spend decades between the stars why not
go en masse?
Adam
From VM Fri Oct 2 16:43:25 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1163" "Fri" "2" "October" "1998" "18:28:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1163
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17375
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA17315
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 16:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p268.gnt.com [204.49.91.28])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA02846;
Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:36:59 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdee5c$5becf620$1c5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810021118.MAA16001@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 18:28:27 -0500
Zenon,
> You probably misunderstood my post.
> I did NOT propose to propel the ship with pulsing MAGNETIC fields -
> I know the "stardrive" scheme would not work (we discussed it
> some time ago here).
> I wrote that Kevins electrostatic scheme may work with
> pulsing ELECTRIC fields, making a rather loose analogy with
> pulsing magnetic fields that do work in electric motors.
> I am not sure it will work, anyway - the main objection is that
> the ship floats within a cloud of charged particles
> of BOTH polarities. But maybe due to different masses of
> the particles with opposite charges (protons vs. electrons)
> some thrust can be generated in some way...
>
Sorry if I misunderstood. (I'm not sure I understood based on what you just
said, so I couldn't have misunderstood, not having understood it in the
first place <G>).
Masses are irrelevant the lighter particles are simply accelerated to higher
velocities and everything still balances. Now if the laser can produce an
imbalance by some trick such as polarization or something, this would be a
wonderful idea. I think I would still mount the shipboard lasers in case of
emergency though.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:01 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1816" "Sat" "3" "October" "1998" "13:21:51" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: hard space (was: scoops, sails etc.)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1816
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21133
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21120
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne5p31.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.95]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03740 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:23:42 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <36159843.C8F8D89A@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000401bdee5c$60e58b60$1c5b31cc@lparker>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: hard space (was: scoops, sails etc.)
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 13:21:51 +1000
L. Parker wrote:
> Adam,
>
> > A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile
> > space-colonies.
> > They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook
> > system, and they'd
> > have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal
> > thermal wrapping.
> > With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D
> > reactions. Or
> > maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and
> > that'd become a
> > great fuelling post.
[which would make higher Vfinal possible, maybe ~ 0.3c.]
> If you're going to spend decades between the
> > stars why not
> > go en masse?
>
> We could creep out through the Oort cloud one rock at a time like some sort
> of interstellar fungus...
>
> Better hope some alien doesn't come along with a bottle of Lysol!
Hehehehe. Of course if they're able to manipulate space-time they might just
decide to cut our world-lines. Oort Cloud creeping is a silly scenario unless
comets are worth inhabiting, though just what sort of social group would find
that worthwhile I don't know. Buddhist monks? They could live off starlight.
As for top-speeds I wonder if 0.2c isn't something of an upper-limit. Alan Bond
in the JBIS wrote an article years ago on the amount of erosion starships would
have to handle from dust, and he calculated that a maximum speed between 0.2 -
0.25 c. I can imagine using UV-lasers to ionise dust and strong fields to
deflect it, but just how much of this is necessary and how practical is yet to
be determined. Perhaps fast starships [+0.3c] will be well armed - with phasers
and photon torpedoes maybe? They'd certainly be well shielded too, making
conflict very interesting. Perhaps fleets will be needed after all?
>
>
> Lee
"We come in peace, but we'll shot to kill if you piss us off."
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["960" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "00:27:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 960
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16370
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16352
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UWDa10153
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <591ea6a6.36184ab4@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/1/98 3:44:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>I'm afraid the best we can hope for in the time frame we are discussing is a
>
>first or second generation fusion engine or hybrid antimatter/fusion engine.
>
>In truth, we can design a ship around a drive that can get a small vessel up
>
>to 0.3 c. It won't be as fancy as Kelly's Explorer, but we should be able to
>
>put a crew of 5 to 10 people on Alpha Centauri after a 12 year flight. Kind
>
>of long, but doable. Tau Ceti of course would take longer, probably at least
>
>thirty years one way. We would have to put a crew of twenty year old
>
>astronauts aboard and expect them to get back when they were eighty!
>
>
>
>Lee
I agree on the fusion bit, but I'm pretty skeptical that you could make a 5-10
person ship workable (or survivable). Also thats far to few people to do a
decent amount of exploration of a star system. At best you'ld go, drop a
frag, and come home.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["799" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "00:27:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 799
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16379
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16363
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GZEa22052
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:27:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/2/98 6:57:29 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>A more likely star-flight scenario, I think, is fleets of mobile space-
colonies.
>They'd be co-operatives who'd mine the Jovians via a skyhook system, and
they'd
>have huge mass-ratios thanks to using no tanks, bar minimal thermal wrapping.
>With mass-ratios of 100 they could get up to ~ 0.2c using D/D reactions. Or
>maybe a lithium dwarf star will be found close to the Sun and that'd become a
>great fuelling post. If you're going to spend decades between the stars why
not
>go en masse?
>
>Adam
This runs into the two big questions:
- Who'ld pay for all this?
- Why?
We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino.
a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1054" "Sun" "4" "October" "1998" "23:51:48" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1054
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22987
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22981
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26881
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA13643;
Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13848.27780.640084.886987@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com>
References: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> This runs into the two big questions:
> - Who'ld pay for all this?
> - Why?
>
> We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino.
> a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top.
With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
exploration.
When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
far less.
In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
that.
From VM Mon Oct 5 09:55:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3922" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "00:10:17" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3922
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17910
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA17903
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne9p54.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.118]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24649 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:12:10 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3618D340.77D217C5@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5e52ee26.36184ab6@aol.com> <13848.27780.640084.886987@tzadkiel.efn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 00:10:17 +1000
Hi Group
Steve VanDevender wrote:
> KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > This runs into the two big questions:
> > - Who'ld pay for all this?
> > - Why?
> >
> > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval missino.
> > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top.
>
> With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
> can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
> exploration.
>
> When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
> technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
> question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
> will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
> colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
> interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
> expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
> far less.
>
> In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
> different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
> sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
> that.
Thanks for the eloquent reply. The most believable scenario achieveable by 2050
that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and
particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt-based
infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then pulse
propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with neutron
damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium
reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power scenarios, but
they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a bit
hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or fusion
systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050?
I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is filled
with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is underway.
That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off-Earth
than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common-place.
Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber-augmentation, plus
various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be able to
go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void.
I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are fusion
drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion pulse, we
haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high-Tc
superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what is
possible? If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha
Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What would
it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand HLLV
flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs, and the
risks of terrorism and so forth.
So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly
possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class liberals
that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some
god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety of
reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are more
likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a life,
it'll be a life.
So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small scale
Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not
several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's really
silly.
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 5 17:47:10 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2100" "Mon" "5" "October" "1998" "19:37:15" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "42" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2100
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27354
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27348
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p231.gnt.com [204.49.89.231])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA14037;
Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:37:19 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdf0c1$789c3760$e75931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3618D340.77D217C5@ozemail.com.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 19:37:15 -0500
Jeez Adam,
Excuse me while I re-plate the contacts on my modem card...it got kind of
hot <G>.
Several months ago I began a project which I posted a preview link to on my
website, outlining a timeline for the next 50 to 100 years. I got some
really good suggestions and some replies that it looked more like fiction
than a serious discussion relevant to this list.
It had a purpose however, and your diatribe hits precisely home. My point
then was (and still is) that we are attempting to define technologies and
design a ship without considering the infrastructure required to make ANY of
this possible. As you and Steve both intimate, there is more to building a
starship than throwing a bunch of hardware together and aiming it at the
nearest star.
I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time
studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and
individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected
advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in
2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc.
The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its
infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production
infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable,
dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a
little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American
frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so.
The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space
exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the
development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to
a point where we can send out an interstellar probe.
In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets.
Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even
thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for
one thing - a new chance on a new world.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 6 09:30:38 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2281" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "13:13:25" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2281
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05518
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05492
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA02364; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:13:25 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810061213.NAA02364@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:13:25 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
[...]>
> I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time
> studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and
> individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected
> advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in
> 2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc.
>
> The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its
> infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production
> infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable,
> dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a
> little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American
> frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so.
>
> The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space
> exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the
> development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to
> a point where we can send out an interstellar probe.
>
That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing
we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate
and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System.
As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible
(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich
concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private
enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here.
The Mars Society awaits us...
> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets.
> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even
> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for
> one thing - a new chance on a new world.
>
Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way...
Regards,
-- Zenon
* * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * *
http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan]
From VM Tue Oct 6 09:30:38 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["39966" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "07:18:58" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "884" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 39966
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05872
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05867
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA01986
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:20:29 -0500
Message-ID: <000101bdf123$7e890420$c25931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:58 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com]
On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:08 PM
Subject: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 2 of 2]
[ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ]
[ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ]
[continued from part 1]
The Mars Underground Emerges:
The Founding Convention of the Mars Society
by Keith Cowing
Introduction
Boulder, Colorado has been the temporary base camp for
Earthbound Martians for more than a decade. Every few summers, they
roll into town for one in a series of "Case for Mars" conferences
wherein a diverse mixture of scientists, engineers, and space
enthusiasts (the so-called "Mars Underground") have gathered to keep
the dialog going -- even if NASA had apparently lost interest.
This summer there was another Mars meeting in Boulder. Unlike
all previous meetings, this one came in the wake of the new and
exciting information from Mars: the Mars Pathfinder landing and the
Mars Global Surveyor mission. Add in the residual excitement from the
ALH84001 discoveries, and Mars was a hot topic for the first time
since the Viking days
This summer, the Mars Underground finally came out of hiding -
with a vengeance.
The Attendees
The attendees came from both predictable and unpredictable
backgrounds. While the overwhelming portion of the participants were
white males 25-50 with scientific or engineering backgrounds, there
was a surprising number of females, children, the elderly, and people
of color. Indeed, I'd say that there was more diversity than I had
expected to see -- and was very pleased to see this. It was this
diversity of backgrounds, all drawn together by an interest in Mars,
which made this conference special.
Once you got beyond the obvious categories, you really saw
some spectacular diversity. Political backgrounds ranged from left to
right, from environmentalists and feminists to archconservative
nationalists and libertarians. One common characteristic was
pervasive and made all other characteristics of secondary importance:
these people are explorers, visionaries, and pioneers. Whether or not
they actually have the ability or opportunity to go to Mars themselves
was irrelevant: this crowd represented the broad mix needed to make it
possible for humans to walk on Mars.
By the end of the conference, it certainly became clear to me
that the white male bias was misleading, and possibly only a temporary
phenomenon. These people were all Martians. While the word has yet to
get out to everyone, it is now well on its way thanks to this event.
The Organizers
The organizers consisted of Bob Zubrin, his entire family, and
just about anyone in Boulder he could arm twist into helping. While
there were the inevitable (minor) glitches here and there the
organizers managed to pull off a comfortable, friendly gathering, one
where the participants joined in whenever needed to help make things
work. I guess you could say everyone helped organize and run his
meeting -- and it showed. Something needed to emerge from this
conference and everyone seemed to feel that they were going to help
craft that outcome.
The Presentations and the Presenters
Presentations covered the entire range of topics you'd expect
at a conference on Mars -- plus quite a number you would not. Notable
among the speakers were astronauts John Young and Scott Horowitz;
former NASA Exploration Office head Mike Griffin; JPL Mars mission
scientists Matt Golombek and Mike Manning; extremeophile biologist
Penny Boston; NASA Ames scientists Chris McKay, Carol Stoker, and
Larry Lemke; Mars Society founder Bob Zubrin; and Space Frontier
president Rick Tumlinson.
Topics covered living off the land, mission design, propulsion
technologies, colonization sociology, politics, and the arts. With an
attendance of 600 and several hundred presenters, this had to be the
highest presenter to participant ratio I have ever seen! With so many
presentations, there were often 5 or more simultaneous sessions
underway. I eventually found myself surfing sessions so as to try and
get a representative flavor of the whole event. A visit to the Mars
Society website is perhaps the only fitting way to truly appreciate
the breadth of topics discussed.
Having attended innumerable scientific and technical meetings,
I was immediately struck at how well attended each and every session
was. Rooms were frequently filled beyond capacity, people were very
polite, and every effort was made to stay on schedule. Night sessions
were equally jammed. The biggest surprise was that the very last
session of the meeting was heavily attended. These people wanted to
drink in as much about Mars as they possibly could.
Diversity Breeds Controversy
There was certainly no shortage of opinions expressed at this
conference - which is what made it so interesting. Meetings of
traditional organizations such as the AIAA or AAS can be so
orchestrated and sanitized that they can be sleep inducing. This
crowd was spontaneous and interactive on and off stage.
Perhaps the most dynamic event was the evening session held on
Terraforming. As far as I am able to tell, with 600 people in the
auditorium, this was the largest single assembly of people ever
convened to discuss the deliberate alteration of another planet.
Although the organizers had intended to have a range of opinions
represented on the panel, last minute changes resulted in a panel that
was generally pro-terraforming.
The most extreme example of the pro-terraformers was Lowell
Woods from Stanford University. His blatantly pro-America, manifest
destiny inspired message that humans had an obligation to terraform
Mars got the audience going. While some panel members sought to soften
Woods views, many people remained extremely opposed to Woods and let
their feelings be known. Overall, the premise of all remarks was not
if to terraform; rather it was more an issue of when and how.
By the time the night was over it became abundantly clear that
the Mars Society represented a very nice cross section of all of the
electorate. It also became clear that the Society has growing pains
ahead as it strives to become a truly international organization, not
one with an Americentric focus and base of support.
The Rally Cry
The meeting ended with a banquet followed by an organizing
rally. Once the attendees had been given an introduction to the
avowed aims of the Mars Society, they all voted unanimously to approve
its charter. This was followed by an open microphone organizing rally
where the enthusiasm and diversity of the attendees once again became
evident. This was then followed by a splintering off of people into
chapters organized by geography, which ranged from Mozambique to
Washington DC. When the university began to close the doors for the
evening, these groups moved out into the darkness and continued to
organize.
The Outcome -- And The Road Ahead
Within a few days people had settled back at home and the
email and web activity started. For my part, I updated my Whole Mars
Catalog so as to have a Mars Society hot button on every page.
Meanwhile, the Mars Society website leapt into action and has been
constantly updated ever since. Local chapters and focus groups set up
mailing lists and the email traffic began. Now, two months after the
event, things have settled down a bit. This is to be expected -- the
initial hoopla spawned at the meeting has collided with the reality of
what everyone had waiting for them back home.
As with all nascent political organizations (make no doubt,
politics is at the core of what the Mars Society is all about), the
challenge before the Society is to transform the heady enthusiasm of
campaign rallies into the drudgery of going door to door. This aspect
of the task is not as glamorous or immediately satisfying, but it is
what will be required if the Mars Society is to awaken and focus the
public's interest such that real changes can be made.
Based upon what I saw in Boulder, I have to say that kilo for
kilo, this crowd has the highest energy density I have ever seen in a
space oriented organization, energy which will suit them well as they
tackle the big tasks ahead.
Keith Cowing is editor of NASA Watch, The Astrobiology Web, and The
Whole Mars Catalog.
Spaceweek Organizers Sought
by Spaceweek
Pro-space individuals and organizations are invited to help
put a global "spotlight" on space via Spaceweek, an annual event
consisting of many simultaneous activities and media coverage.
"Space needs its Earth Day," said Dennis Stone, volunteer
President of Spaceweek International Association (SIA), a non-profit
organization based in Houston. "By cooperating in an annual media
event, the pro-space community can demonstrate grass roots support for
space."
Spaceweek is now celebrated during the first full week of
March of each year. In 1999, this will be March 7-13. It was moved
two years ago to these new dates to impact education. "During the old
Spaceweek dates in July, we completely missed the schools. Now
Spaceweek benefits the classroom at the same time it involves the mass
public in space," Stone said.
The following help is needed across the pro-space community:
* Individuals to serve as city, regional, and state Spaceweek
coordinators
* Organizations to hold special public space events during
Spaceweek
* Help in encouraging teachers to use space in the classroom
during Spaceweek
Events held during Spaceweek have included space exhibits,
star parties, model rocket launches, space festivals, etc. It can be
a simple as helping a library feature space books that week, or as
bold as organizing and publicizing a space-theme parade. For
additional ideas on events your organization can hold, please see
www.spaceweek.org.
Coordinators are needed to encourage groups in their area to
hold events, and to help attract media coverage. To serve as a
coordinator, please notify SIA of your desired geographical region via
email to admin@spaceweek.org. We will let you know if that area is
available.
If your group holds an event during Spaceweek, please notify
SIA by early January of the planned location, date, time, and
description via email to admin@spaceweek.org. SIA encourages event
holders to report attendance and media coverage after Spaceweek is
over.
SIA is an independent, non-advocacy, non-membership
organization founded in 1981 solely to promote participation in
Spaceweek by the entire space community. It does not promote any
single company, country, policy, etc. Rather, the messages sent out
during Spaceweek are determined by the event organizers themselves.
To help encourage teachers to use space during Spaceweek, SIA
recently created the Spaceweek Activities Guide. The guide, available
at www.spaceweek.org, includes science and math activities using the
excitement of space that can be easily tailored by K-12 teachers.
*** Book Reviews ***
by Jeff Foust
Just Visiting This Planet
Just Visiting This Planet: Merlin Answers More Questions About
Everything Under the Sun, Moon, and Stars
by Neil de Grasse Tyson
Main Street Books (Doubleday), 1998
softcover, 336 pp., illus.
ISBN 0-385-48837-8
US$12.95/C$17.95
Since the late 1970s Stardate, a magazine published by the
McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas, has featured a
question-and-answer column written by "Merlin", an omniscient visitor
from the Andromeda Galaxy. Since 1983 the column has been written by
Neil de Grasse Tyson, now the director of the Hayden Planetarium in
New York City. "Just Visiting This Planet" is a collection of
Merlin's answers to a variety of questions about all aspects of
astronomy.
The answers here range from a couple of pages down to a single
word ("No"), providing just enough information to answer the questions
without going to excessive detail. The writing style is intended to
be witty, and it succeeds, although it can excessively flip (like the
several single-word answers.) Most of the topics covered in the book
are pretty basic, if frequently-asked, but for someone looking for
witty, readable answers to astronomy questions, "Just Visiting This
Planet" will be an enlightening read.
Two Physics Books
Time: A Traveler's Guide
by Clifford A. Pickover
Oxford University Press, 1998
hardcover, 285pp., illus.
ISBN 0-19-512042-6
US$25.00
Is time travel possible? The question probes the heart of our
understanding -- or lack thereof -- of time and space. Clifford A.
Pickover explores the topic in detail in "Time: A Traveler's Guide".
Using a science-fiction story involving three would-be time travelers
in 21st century New York, Pickover describes the physics which
explains why time travel may or may not be possible. Pickover doesn't
shy away from using physics equations to explain various concepts, but
the dialogue among the characters in the story helps explain the
concepts at a level an interested layman can understand. You'll be no
closer to building a time machine at the end of this book, but you'll
have a good feel for the various physics concepts behind time and
space.
Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics
by John Archibald Wheeler with Kenneth Ford
W. W. Norton, 1998
hardcover, 380pp., illus.
ISBN 0-393-04602-7
US$27.95/C$39.99
John Archibald Wheeler is probably best known for the name he
gave to a body with gravity so strong that not even light can escape:
a "black hole". However, Wheeler has played a key role in physics
throughout the 20th century, from this work on the Manhattan Project
to various topics in physics research. This autobiography provides a
somewhat non-linear look at his life -- starting with his work shortly
before and during the war, before going back to his childhood -- and
his research. Anyone interested in Wheeler's life and work will find
this book a must-read.
*** NSS News ***
Upcoming Boston NSS Events
Thursday, October 15, 7:30pm
545 Main Street, Cambridge (Tech Square), 8th floor
"Mission Control Cambridge: NASA's New X-Ray Telescope"
by Jonathan McDowell, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
The Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility is NASA's next Great
Observatory. It is scheduled to be launched on the Shuttle in early
1999 and will provide the sharpest ever pictures of stars and galaxies
seen in X-rays. AXAF will be controlled and operated by the AXAF
Science Center, from a mission control center in Kendall Square,
Cambridge. Astronomers from all over the world have already planned
observations for the first year of AXAF operations.
Boston NSS September Lecture Summary
by Lynn Olson
Chris Carberry, a driving force behind the new NSS Speakers
bureau, presented "Space: A Revolution About to Begin" at the
September meeting of the Boston Chapter of the National Space Society.
The main points were: (1) how space technology affects us now on
earth, (2) private ventures, (3) public ventures (e.g. NASA), (4)
obstacles to the advancement of the space cause, and (5) speculation
about the future.
The space progam has produced technology which effects us
every day, such as medical diagnostics and smoke detectors. NASA
estimates there are over 30,000 spin offs from the space program which
are used in the general economy. One study estimates that we have
gotten back $15 in benefits for every dollar expended in the space
progam.
Private ventures are the way that space directly enters the
economy. In addition to the major aerospace companies there are a
variety of small companies entering the space marketplace with
innovative technologies which may greatly lower the cost of doing
business in space. The CATS (Cheap Access to Space) prize and X-Prize
provide encouragement for some of these efforts. The satellite
communications industry seems to be exploding with ventures put
forward by Bill Gates and Craig McCaw, Motorola, and others.
With the advance of private industry, what is the role of NASA
or other publicly funded organizations? One is to push the
technological envelope, to test technology which may be too risky for
private enterprise, such as single state to orbit vehicles. Another
is to explore, to satisfy human curiosity. Missions to Mars,
telescopes to peer deep into the past, and other scientific missions
fit this mold.
Some of the primary obstacles to space advances are
regulatory, especially the impact on space business as we move out
into space. The "Moon Treaty" makes property rights in space unclear.
While licensing exists for launch of commercial space vehicles, there
has been no provision for return, making it difficult for companies
developing reusable launch vehicles
Kistler, in fact, is starting its testing program in Australia
because of this issue. Space enthusiasts need to make their opinions
on regulations known to people in the government.
This talk is one which may be given to local groups to promote
the visibility of space in the community. The NSS Speaker's Bureau
is looking for volunteers to call libraries to set up talks, support
speakers at talks, and to give talks to local groups. Other talks with
slides have also been prepared.
*** Regular Features ***
Jonathan's Space Report No. 373
by Jonathan McDowell
[Ed. Note: Go to http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~jcm/space/jsr/jsr.html for
back issues and other information about Jonathan's Space Report.]
Shuttle and Mir
Gennadiy Padalka and Sergey Avdeev have completed one month in space,
continuing their mission on the Mir orbital station. On Sep 15 they put
on spacesuits, depressurized the PKhO compartment of the Mir core module
and entered Spektr at 2000 UTC. They reconnected some cables for the
solar panel steering mechanism and closed the hatch at 2030 UTC.
The PKhO was then repressurized.
Discovery has been connected to the external tank and boosters in
High Bay 1 of the Vehicle Assembly Building. It was rolled out
to pad 39B on Sep 21.
Recent Launches
* Ariane launches PAS 7
Arianespace successfully launched an Ariane 44LP rocket on Sep 16,
placing the PAS 7 satellite in orbit. PAS-7 was built by Space
Systems/Loral and is a FS-1300 class satellite with 14 C-band and 30
Ku-band transponders. It is owned by Panamsat, whose Galaxy 10 satellite
was destroyed in an Aug 27 launch failure. The Ariane 44LP has two
solid PAP boosters and two liquid PAL boosters attached to the Ariane 4
first stage. The H-10-3 liquid hydrogen fuelled third stage completed
its burn 18 min after launch. The PAS 7 satellite separated 21 min after
launch into a supersynchronous 140 x 54755 x 7.0 deg transfer orbit - I
believe this is the first time that an Ariane launch has used the
supersynchronous technique. On Sep 18, PAS 7 was in a 10082 x 54599 km x
2.2 deg orbit after initial burns of its Marquardt R-4D liquid apogee
motor.
PAS series satellites:
Type Launch v. Launch date 1998 position
PAS 1 GE Series 3000 Ariane 4 1988 Jun 15 Atlantic 44.9W
PAS 2 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1994 Jul 8 Pacific 169.0E
PAS 3 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1994 Dec 1 Launch failure
PAS 4 Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1995 Aug 3 Indian 68.5E
PAS 3R Hughes HS-601 Ariane 4 1996 Jan 12 Indian 91.5E
PAS 6 Loral FS-1300 Ariane 4 1996 Aug 8 Atlantic 43.2W
PAS 5 Hughes HS-601HP Proton 1997 Aug 28 Atlantic 58.0W
PAS 7 Loral FS-1300 Ariane 4 1998 Sep 16 Indian 68.5E
(planned)
* Orbital Sciences launches Orbcomms
Eight more Orbcomm satellites were launched on Sep 23. The Orbital
Sciences L-1011 Stargazer aircraft took off from Wallops Flight Facility
at 1610 UTC and flew to the drop point at around 37.0N 72.0W. 12 km over
the Atlantic Ocean (this guesstimate location is based on info courtesy
of Keith Stein). The Pegasus XL was dropped at 1706 UTC and the winged
first stage ignited its Alliant solid motor 5 seconds later. The three
solid Pegasus XL stages fired successfully to place the payload stack in
a 254 x 446 km x 45.0 km orbit. The Primex Aerospace HAPS-Lite hydrazine
upper stage then made a burn to increase apogee to around 800 km, and
the stack coasted for about 44 minutes until a second HAPS burn
circularized the orbit. The eight Orbcomm satellites were then deployed
over a 15 minute period into an 810 km near-circular orbit. Finally, the
HAPS stage made a final burn to deplete its fuel, lowering its perigee
by 100 km. The mission profile was similar to previous Orbcomm launches,
except that the Pegasus third stage apogee is significantly lower, with
a correspondingly larger HAPS burn.
* Globalstar failure
In my description of the Zenit launch failure I said that Yuzhnoe
officials provided incorrect information about the progress of the
mission to Globalstar. A more recent Globalstar statement implies that
both Yuzhnoe's and Globalstar's people simply misinterpreted the noisy
data available to them. This is by no means the first time that a launch
success has been announced and later retracted - it happened several
times in the early days of the space program, and more recently the
Landsat 6 satellite was even cataloged by Space Command for a while
before it was discovered to be in a submarine orbit. North Korea,
meanwhile, has not yet acknowledged that its satellite never reached
orbit.
Table of Recent Launches
Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission
INTL.
DES.
DES.
Aug 2 1624 Orbcomm FM13 ) Pegasus XL Wallops Comsat
46A
Orbcomm FM14 ) Comsat
46B
Orbcomm FM15 ) Comsat
46C
Orbcomm FM16 ) Comsat
46D
Orbcomm FM17 ) Comsat
46E
Orbcomm FM18 ) Comsat
46F
Orbcomm FM19 ) Comsat
46G
Orbcomm FM20 ) Comsat
46H
Aug 12 1130 MERCURY Titan 4A Canaveral SLC41 Sigint
F02
Aug 13 0943 Soyuz TM-28 Soyuz-U Baykonur LC1 Spaceship
47A
Aug 19 2301 Iridium SV03) CZ-2C/SD Taiyuan Comsat
48A
Iridium SV76) Comsat
48B
Aug 25 2307 ST-1 Ariane 44P Kourou Comsat
49A
Aug 27 0117 Galaxy X Delta III Canaveral SLC17B Comsat
F03
Aug 30 0031 Astra 2A Proton Baykonur Comsat
50A
Aug 31 0307 Kwangmyongsong 1 Taepo Dong Musudan Test
F04
Sep 8 2113 Iridium SV77) Delta 7920 Vandenberg SLC2 Comsat
51E
Iridium SV79) Comsat
51D
Iridium SV80) Comsat
51C
Iridium SV81) Comsat
51B
Iridium SV82) Comsat
51A
Sep 9 2029 Globalstar FM5 ) Zenit-2 Baykonur Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM7 ) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM9 ) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM10) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM11) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM12) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM13) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM16) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM17) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM18) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM20) Comsat
F05
Globalstar FM21) Comsat
F05
Sep 16 0631 PAS 7 Ariane 44LP Kourou Comsat
52A
Sep 23 0506 Orbcomm FM21 ) Pegasus XL/HAPS Wallops I Comsat
53A
Orbcomm FM22 ) Comsat
53B
Orbcomm FM23 ) Comsat
53C
Orbcomm FM24 ) Comsat
53D
Orbcomm FM25 ) Comsat
53E
Orbcomm FM26 ) Comsat
53F
Orbcomm FM27 ) Comsat
53G
Orbcomm FM28 ) Comsat
53H
Current Shuttle Processing Status
_________________________________
Orbiters Location Mission Launch Due
OV-102 Columbia OPF Bay 3 STS-93 Jan ?
OV-103 Discovery LC39B STS-95 Oct 29
OV-104 Atlantis Palmdale OMDP
OV-105 Endeavour OPF Bay 1 STS-88 Dec 3?
MLP2/RSRM-68/ET-98/OV-103 LC39B STS-95
Space Calendar
by Ron Baalke
[Ed. Note: visit http://newproducts.jpl.nasa.gov/calendar/ for the
complete calendar]
Oct ?? - Kitt Peak National Observatory's 40th Birthday (1958)
Oct ?? - Space Memorabilia Auction, Beverly Hills, California
Oct 01 - Asteroid 236 Honoria at Opposition (10.5 Magnitude)
Oct 01 - Asteroid 1998 SG2 Near-Earth Flyby (0.217 AU)
Oct 01 - Kuiper Belt Object 1992 QB1 at Opposition (39.906 AU - 23.1
Magnitude)
Oct 01 - NASA's 40th Birthday (1958)
Oct 01-03 - 1998 National Aerospace Conference, Dayton, Ohio
Oct 01-03 - Pushing The Envelope III: From The Mountains Of Earth To The
Mountains Of The Moon, Houston,
Texas
Oct 02 - STEX/ATEx Taurus Launch
Oct 02 - Meteorite Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland
Oct 02 - 4th Annual Toys, Games and Multimedia Workshop: Playing Among The
Planets 98, Pasadena, California
Oct 02-03 - Astro Assembly 98, North Scituate, Rhode Island
Oct 03 - Asteroid 1998 QO52 Closest Approach To Earth (0.489 AU)
Oct 04 - Moon Occults Jupiter
Oct 04 - Asteroid 185 Eunike at Opposition (10.9 Magnitude)
Oct 04 - Asteroid 532 Herculina at Opposition (10.7 Magnitude)
Oct 04 - Asteroid 1998 ST27 Near-Earth Flyby (0.220 AU)
Oct 04 - Kuiper Belt Object 1993 SB at Opposition (30.112 AU - 22.9
Magnitude)
Oct 04 - Great Debate In 1998: The Nature Of The Universe, Washington DC
Oct 04-09 - Optical/IR Interferometry Workshop, Flagstaff, Arizona
Oct 05 - Asteroid 14 Irene at Opposition (10.6 Magnitude)
Oct 05 - Asteroid 6852 (1985 CN2) Closest Approach To Earth (1.334 AU)
Oct 05 - Asteroid 1997 WU22 Closest Approach To Earth (1.353 AU)
Oct 05 - Venus Revealed Lecture, New York, New York
Oct 05-07 - Workshop on Emerging Scatterometer Applications, Noordwijk, The
Netherlands
Oct 05-07 - 5th International Conference On Remote Sensing for Marine and
Coastal Environments, San Diego,
California
Oct 05-07 - Bulges Mini-Workshop: When And How Do Bulges Form and Evolve?,
Baltimore, Maryland
Oct 05-09 - Solar Wind 9 Conference, Nantucket, Massachusetts
Oct 06 - Comet P/1998 QP54 Perihelion (1.885 AU)
Oct 06 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 RQ20 at Opposition (38.550 AU - 22.9
Magnitude)
Oct 07 - Eutelsat-W2/ Sirius-3 Ariane 4 Launch
Oct 07 - Asteroid 1998 SB15 Near-Earth Flyby (0.127 AU)
Oct 07 - Asteroid 5255 Johnsophie Closest Approach To Earth (1.746 AU)
Oct 07 - Kuiper Belt Object 1997 SZ10 at Opposition (30.617 AU - 23.5
Magnitude)
Oct 07 - Kuiper Belt Object 1995 QZ9 at Opposition (33.987 AU - 22.9
Magnitude)
Oct 08 - Hot Bird 5 Atlas 2AS Launch
Oct 08 - Asteroid 1998 PG Near-Earth Flyby (0.247 AU)
Oct 08 - Asteroid 5051 (1984 SM) Closest Approach To Earth (1.116 AU)
Oct 08 - Ejnar Hertzsprung's 125th Birthday (1873)
Oct 08-11 - 5th Annual Enchanted Skies Star Party, Socorro, New Mexico
Oct 09 - Moon Occults Aldebaran (Daylight Occultation)
Oct 09 - Draconids Meteor Shower Peak
Oct 09 - Asteroid 1998 QC1 Near-Earth Flyby (0.181 AU)
Oct 09 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 SZ4 at Opposition (29.285 AU - 22.7
Magnitude)
Oct 09 - Radarsat Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland
Oct 09-11 - 7th Space Frontier Conference, Los Angeles, California
Oct 10 - Comet McNaught-Hughes Closest Approach to Earth (1.707 AU)
Oct 10 - 15th Anniversary (1983), Venera 15 Venus Orbit Insertion
Oct 11 - Asteroid 1994 TF2 Near-Earth Flyby (0.275 AU)
Oct 11 - Asteroid 1998 FR11 Near-Earth Flyby (0.346 AU)
Oct 11 - Asteroid 1620 Geographos Closest Approach To Earth (1.011 AU)
Oct 11 - Asteroid 6904 (1990 QW1) Closest Approach To Earth (1.294 AU)
Oct 11 - Asteroid 5731 Zeus Closest Approach To Earth (1.610 AU)
Oct 11 - 30th Anniversary (1968), Apollo 7 Launch
Oct 11 - Wilhelm Olbers' 240th Birthday (1758)
Oct 11-16 - 30th Annual Meeting Of the Division For Planetary Sciences,
Madison, Wisconsin
Oct 12 - Mars Polar Lander Arrives At Kennedy Space Center
Oct 12 - Asteroid 1990 BA Closest Approach To Earth (0.815 AU)
Oct 12 - Asteroid 6020 Miyamoto Closest Approach To Earth (1.219 AU)
Oct 12-14 - 9th Annual October Astrophysics Conference, College Park,
Maryland
Oct 12-16 - Workshop On Dust In The Interstellar Medium, Bern, Switzerland
Oct 13 - Asteroid 1998 QP63 Near-Earth Flyby (0.392 AU)
Oct 13 - Asteroid 1998 RR2 Closest Approach To Earth (0.584 AU)
Oct 13 - Asteroid 7655 Adamries Closest Approach To Earth (1.412 AU)
Oct 13 - British Interplanetary Society's 65th Birthday (1933)
Oct 14 - NEAR, Trajectory Correction Maneuver #15 (TCM-15)
Oct 14 - Comet Lovas 1 Perihelion (1.692 AU)
Oct 14 - Asteroid 1036 Ganymed Closest Approach To Earth (0.464 AU)
Oct 14 - Asteroid 1998 ST4 Closest Approach To Earth (0.947 AU)
Oct 14 - Asteroid 6893 (1983 RS3) Closest Approach To Earth (1.222 AU)
Oct 14 - 15th Anniversary (1983), Venera 16 Venus Orbit Insertion
Oct 14-16 - ESO Conference on Chemical Evolution From Zero to High Redshift,
Garching, Germany
Oct 14-16 - 9th International Conference On Adaptive Structures and
Technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Oct 14-16 - Inspection 98, Houston, Texas
Oct 15 - Asteroid 6047 (1991 TB1) Near-Earth Flyby (0.375 AU)
Oct 15 - Comet C/1998 M6 (Montani) Perihelion (5.970 AU)
Oct 15 - STARDUST Lecture, Pasadena, California
Oct 15 - Chuck Yeager Lecture, Washington DC
Oct 15-20 -[Sep 25] Mid-Atlantic Star Party, Central North Carolina
Oct 16 - Moon Occults Mars
Oct 16 - Comet Klemola Closest Approach to Earth (1.522 AU)
Oct 16 - Asteroid 4339 Almamater Closest Approach To Earth (0.816 AU)
Oct 16 - STARDUST Lecture, Pasadena, California
Oct 16 - Aerosels And Climate Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland
Oct 16-18 - 20th Custer Astronomy Jamboree, Southold, New York
Oct 17 - Iridium 11 Delta 2 Launch
Oct 17 - Comet C/1998 P1 (Williams) Perihelion (1.162 AU)
Oct 17 - Asteroid 44 Nysa at Opposition (9.8 Magnitude)
Oct 18 - Asteroid 1998 OX4 Near-Earth Flyby (0.177 AU)
Oct 18 - 5th Anniversary (1993), STS-58 Launch, Space Lab Sciences 2
Oct 18-25 - 15th Annual Okie-Tex Star Party, Fort Davis, Texas
Oct 19 - UHF-F9 Atlas 2A Launch
Oct 19-22 - 1st International Conference On Mars Polar Science and
Exploration, Houston, Texas
Oct 19-23 - Chapman Conference On Space Based Radio Observations at Long
Wavelengths, Paris, France
Oct 20 - ARD/ MAQSAT 3 Ariane 503 Launch
Oct 20 - Asteroid 1991 PM5 Closest Approach To Earth (0.951 AU)
Oct 20 - Asteroid 7006 (1981 ER31) Closest Approach To Earth (1.615 AU)
Oct 20 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TP66 at Opposition (25.403 AU - 20.7
Magnitude)
Oct 20-22 - Workshop On Space Exploration and Resources Exploitation
(ExploSpace), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy
Oct 20-23 - International Conference On The Universe As Seen By ISO, Paris,
France
Oct 21 - Globalstar-4 Zenit 2 Launch
Oct 21 - Orionids Meteor Shower Peak
Oct 21 - Asteroid 1996 TR6 Closest Approach To Earth (0.586 AU)
Oct 21 - Asteroid 457 Alleghenia Closest Approach To Earth (1.552 AU)
Oct 21-23 - 2nd International Workshop On The Retrieval of Bio- and
Geo-Physical Parameters From SAR Data For
Land Applications, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Oct 21-23 - Remote Sensing Applications Conference, Logan, Utah
Oct 22 - SCD-2/Wing Glove Pegasus XL Launch
Oct 22 - Asteroid 409 Aspasia Occults SAO 75073 (9.9 Magnitude Star)
Oct 22 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TQ66 at Opposition (33.604 AU - 21.9
Magnitude)
Oct 22-24 - EVN/JIVE VLBI Symposium #4, Dwingleoo, The Netherlands
Oct 23 - Saturn at Opposition
Oct 23 - Asteroid 6841 Gottfriedkirch Closest Approach To Earth (1.585 AU)
Oct 23-24 - Workship On TeV Astrophysics On Extragalactic Sources,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Oct 23-25 - Blackwater Falls Astronomy Weekend, Davis, West Virginia
Oct 24 - Galileo, Orbital Trim Maneuver #55 (OTM-55)
Oct 24 - Asteroid 1998 SU27 Near-Earth Flyby (0.112 AU)
Oct 24 - Asteroid 1998 SC15 Near-Earth Flyby (0.314 AU)
Oct 24 - Mars Exploration Teachers Workshop, Pasadena, California
Oct 25 - Deep Space 1 Delta 2 Launch
Oct 25 - Daylight Savings - Set Clock Back 1 Hour (USA)
Oct 25 - Asteroid 106 Dione at Opposition (10.7 Magnitude)
Oct 25 - Asteroid 2099 Opik Closest Approach To Earth (0.492 AU)
Oct 26 - Asteroid 20 Massalia at Opposition (8.8 Magnitude)
Oct 26 - Asteroid 674 Rachele at Opposition (11.0 Magnitude)
Oct 26-29 - Annual Meeting Of The Geological Society Of America, Toronto,
Canada
Oct 26-29 - 34th International Telemetering Conference, San Diego,
California
Oct 26-29 - 20th Space Simulation Conference, Annapolis, Maryland
Oct 26-30 - 6th Huntsville Modeling Workshop: The New Millennium
Magnetosphere, Guntersville, Alabama
Oct 27 - Asteroid 1998 QK56 Near-Earth Flyby (0.285 AU)
Oct 27 - Asteroid 1989 NA Closest Approach To Earch (1.524 AU)
Oct 27 - 25th Anniversary (1973), Canon City Meteorite Fall (Hit Garage)
Oct 27-30 - Symposium On Solar Physics With Radio Observations, Kiyosato,
Japan
Oct 28 - Asteroid 7358 (1995 YA3) Closest Approach to Earth (0.438 AU)
Oct 28 - Asteroid 1508 Kemi Closest Approach to Earth (1.201 AU)
Oct 28-29 - First International Workshop On Radiowave Propagation Modelling
For SatComm Services at Ku-Band
and Above, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Oct 28-30 - Defense & Civil Space Programs Conference, Huntsville, Alabama
Oct 29 - STS-95 Launch, Discovery, Spacehab-SM
Oct 29 - Progress M-40/Znamya-2.5 Soyuz U Launch (Russia)
Oct 29 - Tethys Occults PPM 145101 (6.6 Magnitude Star)
Oct 29 - Comet C/1998 M1 (LINEAR) Perihelion (3.110 AU)
Oct 29 - Asteroid 1994 TA Closest Approach to Earth (15.923 AU - 23.7
Magnitude)
Oct 29-Nov 01 - 8th Annual Meeting Of The American Association Of Variable
Star Observers (AAVSO), Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Oct 30 - Fengyun-1C Long March 4B Launch (China)
Oct 30 - Afristar/ GE-5 Ariane 4 Launch
Oct 30 - Kuiper Belt Object 1996 TL66 at Opposition (34.099 AU - 20.4
Magnitude)
Oct 30 - Mars Pathfinder Lecture, Greenbelt, Maryland
Oct 30-31 - NOAA Meeting On Satellites In Our Everyday World, Seattle,
Washington
Oct 31 - Moon Occults Jupiter
Oct 31 - Asteroid 6 Hebe Occults GSC 6255-1346 (9.2 Magnitude Star)
Oct 31-Nov 06 - IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Bellevue,
Washington
==================================
This is the current issue of "SpaceViews" (tm), published by the Boston
Chapter, National Space Society (NSS), distributed in electronic form.
It is also sent as a 8 to 12 page double column newsletter via US Mail.
You may re-distribute this electronically for non-profit use as long as
the entire contents (including this notice) are intact, and you send us
the names of all recipients (include us in your distribution list).
MAILING LIST INFORMATION:
Subscribing and Unsubscribing:
To stop receiving the large monthly 'SpaceViews' newsletter,
send this e-mail message:
To: MajorDomo@spaceviews.com
Subject: anything
UNsubscribe SpaceViews
To receive electronic copies of this SpaceViews newsletter and/or other
information about space and NSS, send an e-mail message similar to the
following. This example subscribes you to 4 separate mailing lists which
are described below. Of course, fill in your own Internet address where is
says "YourAddress@StateU.edu" and your real name inside the parenthesis.
Try to send it from you own account on your own computer, so that the
message appears to be from you.
To: MajorDomo@spaceviews.com
Subject: anything
subscribe SpaceViews YourAddress@StateU.edu (Full Name)
which YourAddress@StateU.edu
help
These subscriptions requests are now handled automatically. The subject
line is ignored. The body of the message should contain commands such as:
help - send me more information about these commands,
which <my_address> - which lists am I on,
info <list_name> - mail me a description of a list,
UNsubscribe <list_name> - remove me from a list,
Subscribe <list_name> <my_address> <full name> - add me to a list,
Although it is possible to omit your address and name, please include them
when subscribing so that we know who you really are, and to avoid problems
like having the name of a workstation inadvertently embedded in you address.
Problems: To get a message to a real person, mail to:
SpaceViews-Approval@spaceviews.com
ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS:
Articles, letters to the editor, chapter updates, andother similar
submissions for SpaceViews are always welcome. The deadline for each
month's issue is the 20th of the month before (i.e. the August deadline is
July 20).
The preferred method of submission is ASCII text files by e-mail;
send articles and other submissions to jeff@spaceviews.com. If you would
like to submit articles in other formats, or would like to submit articles
by another method than e-mail, contact the editor, Jeff Foust, at the above
e-mail address.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Copyright (C) 1998 by Boston Chapter of National Space Society,
a non-profit educational organization 501(c)3.
Permission is hereby granted to redistribute for non-profit use, provided:
1. no modifications are made (except for e-mail delivery info.)
2. this copyright notice is included,
3. you inform Boston NSS of the names of all recipients
This permission may be withdrawn at any time. All other rights reserved.
Some articles are individually copyrighted (C) by their authors.
Excerpts cannot be used, except for reviews and criticisms, without
written permission of NSS, Boston Chapter. (We will try to respond
by e-mail within four business days.)
-Jeff Foust (editor, jeff@spaceviews.com),
-Bruce Mackenzie (email distribution, bam@draper.com)
-Roxanne Warniers (mailings, rwarnier@colybrand.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____ | "SpaceViews" (tm) -by Boston Chapter
// \ // | of the National Space Society (NSS)
// (O) // | Dedicated to the establishment
// \___// | of a spacefaring civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President: Elaine Mullen Board of Directors: Michael Burch
Vice President: Larry Klaes Jeff Foust
Secretary: Lynn Olson Bruce Mackenzie
Treasurer: Roxanne Warniers John Malloy
----------
-
- To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address:
- To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com
- Subject: anything
- unsubscribe SpaceViews
-
- E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net
-
- SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS),
- copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society
- www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com)
From VM Tue Oct 6 09:44:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["47547" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "07:18:46" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "1015" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 47547
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25342
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25302
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05658
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 05:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA01831
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:43 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdf123$77d2e060$c25931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:18:46 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com]
On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 5:02 PM
Subject: SpaceViews -- October 1998 -- from Boston NSS [part 1 of 2]
[ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ]
[ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ]
S P A C E V I E W S
Volume Year 1998, Issue 10
October 1998
http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/10/
*** News ***
NASA Plans to Help Support Russian Space Agency
Gingrich, Congress Criticize NASA
Shuttle Rolls Out for Glenn Launch
Two New Extrasolar Planets Discovered
Engineers Regain Control of SOHO
Gamma Ray Burst Had Effect on Atmosphere
Mir Cosmonauts Complete Brief Internal Spacewalk
Astronomers See Dust Disks in Binary Star System
Mars Global Surveyor Resumes Aerobraking
Senate Hearing Explores Government Launch Incentives
SpaceViews Event Horizon
Other News
*** Articles ***
The Beginnings of America's Man in Space Program
[part 2]
The Mars Underground Emerges: The Founding Convention of the Mars
Society
Spaceweek Organizers Sought
*** Book Reviews ***
Just Visiting This Planet
Two Physics Books
*** NSS News ***
Upcoming Boston NSS Events
Boston NSS September Lecture Summary
*** Regular Features ***
Jonathan's Space Report No. 373
Space Calendar
Editor's Note: As you are no doubt aware by now, we have had significant
problems e-mailing recent issues of SpaceViews. Our old mailing list
provider, ARI, could not handle the large size of the list (SpaceViews now
has about 7,500 subscribers.) We switched to one provider, but they had
technical problems as well that prevented the delivery of the September 15
issue. However, we have found a new home for the list that should end
these problems.
If you did not receive some of the past issues, the best way to get them is
by FTP:
September 15:
ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/980915.txt
September 1:
ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/text/spaceviews.9809.txt
August 15:
ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/980815.txt
These issues are also archived on the SpaceViews Web site,
http://www.spaceviews.com . If neither of these options is available to
you, please contact me at jeff@spaceviews.com and I will mail you a copy of
any missing issues. Keep in mind that I may not be able to respond
immediately because of other mail and upcoming travel plans.
We hope our mailing list problems are behind us and we can continue to
deliever the latest space news and article to you in a timely manner. Feel
free to e-mail me with any questions, comments, suggestions, or concerns
you may have about SpaceViews.
Sincerely,
Jeff Foust
Editor, SpaceViews
jeff@spaceviews.com
*** News ***
NASA Plans to Help Support Russian Space Agency
NASA is seeking up to $660 million in additional funds over
the next four years to provide desperately needed money for the
Russian Space Agency (RSA), whose funding problems pose a serious
threat to the International Space Station, the Washington Post
reported Monday, September 21.
According to the Post, NASA is seeking $60 million now to
purchase additional Russian hardware, plus an additional $40 million
by the end of the year to help keep the troubled Service Module from
falling further behind schedule.
The $40 million would be the first installment in up to $150
million a year that NASA would pay to the RSA over four years to
support their work on the station. The $150 million a year would
represent about half of the annual costs Russia would incur for the
station, and would be a substantial fraction of the RSA's overall
budget.
"In effect, we're buying $150 million per year worth of
insurance" on the station, Joseph Rothenberg, NASA associate
administrator for space flight told the Post. "A year ago, we
wouldn't have predicted things would be this bad."
While NASA is willing to pay half of Russia's space station
assembly costs, Rothenberg warned, "we can't be sure they'll come up
with the other half, though."
The Port reported that, rather than welcoming the addition
funds, Russian officials are holding out for more money than the U.S.
is willing to pay for certain pieces of hardware. Rothenberg said
that since Russia sees its space program as a source of national
pride, they may have trouble continuing to support the station if
their role in the project is reduced.
Also of concern is the new Russian government installed this
month, the third one this year. "We collectively don't really
understand the implications of the Primakov government yet," NASA
administrator Dan Goldin told the Post, referring to new Russian prime
minister Yevgeny Primakov.
The initial $100 million to go to Russia will likely pay for
two Soyuz capsules that will be used as interim station "lifeboats"
until a permanent escape vehicle, based on the X-38, is put into
place. As reported last week, NASA would pay the money now but not
have to take delivery on the Soyuz capsules until 2002.
NASA still plans to launch the first segments of the
International Space Station -- the Russian-built Zarya control module
and the American-built Unity docking module -- in November and
December of this year, respectively, Rothenberg told the Post.
However, the launch of the Service module may slip from April to July
of 1999, even if the RSA receives the money needed now to complete the
module.
Gingrich, Congress Criticize NASA
Key members of both the House and the Senate have spoken out
in opposition of a NASA proposal to financially support the Russian
Space Agency, while Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich leveled strong
criticism against the agency in general.
Speaking at a press conference Thursday, September 24,
Gingrich lashed out at NASA, claiming that the space agency was
bureaucratic and slow. "We have got to break out of slowing down and
making space as boring as possible, which seems to be one of NASA's
major achievements," he said.
Calling current launch systems "slow, cumbersome, and
extraordinary expensive", Gingrich said there was no technological
reason why NASA could not have done more. "If you go back and look at
the last 30 years, and ask yourself how far could we have gotten,
there is no reason today we aren't permanently on the Moon," he said.
"That is entirely an artifact of bureaucracy."
Gingrich also spoke out against the current state of the
International Space Station, putting the blame for ISS's current
problems on the Clinton Administration. "The space station now is a
mess," he said, "in large part because this administration got off to
a feel-good, manage-bad model."
Other members of Congress also voiced concerns about plans
reported September 21 where NASA would pay $660 million to Russia over
a four-year period to help support their contributions to ISS.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chair of the House Science
Committee, said NASA's plans is an acknowledgment by the space agency
that putting Russia on the "critical path" for ISS development was a
mistake. "NASA's request that the American taxpayer now pay for that
mistake while simultaneously treating Russia as an equal partner is
unacceptable," Sensenbrenner said.
"If the U.S. is to assume greater financial responsibilities,
the international agreement with Russia should be renegotiated to
reflect Russia's reduced contribution," Sensenbrenner said. "I oppose
the Administration's scheme to turn a vital and important science
program like the Space Station into more Russian foreign aid."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee, also was skeptical of the NASA
bailout plan. "The situation in Russia could signal future needed
bailouts, and raise concerns over quality control procedures," he
said.
McCain and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) called on the General
Accounting Office to study the proposed funding plan, to see how
likely Russia is to meet its obligations if the funding is approved,
and whether it would be more cost-effective to simply remove Russia
from the program.
"American taxpayers deserve to know how this most recent
announcement affects the total cost of the space station, a full
account of where their dollars would be going, and an assurance that
funds will not be diverted for unapproved uses," McCain said. "Only a
full justification of these costs is acceptable, especially
considering Russia's record as an unreliable financial partner."
Shuttle Rolls Out for Glenn Launch
Workers at the Kennedy Space Center rolled out the space
shuttle Discovery early Monday, September 21, in preparation for an
October launch that includes the second flight of John Glenn, and
narrowly abvoided having to roll it back just three days later.
Discovery was rolled out from the Vehicle Assembly Building to
Pad 39B starting at around 2 am EDT (0600 UT) September 21. It took
six hours for the shuttle assembly, which includes Discovery, its
external fuel tank, and two solid-fuel boosters, to make the 6.8-km
(4.2-mile) trek to the pad.
The shuttle sports a new paint job, with the round blue NASA
"meatball" logo on the left wing and the American flag and the
orbiter's name on the right wing. The meatball logo replaces the old
NASA "worm" logo on Discovery and the other shuttles, including
Atlantis, which completed 10 months of servicing work in California
this month.
Kennedy Space Center officials canceled late Thursday,
September 24, the planned rollback of the space shuttle Discovery
after it was clear that a hurricane would pose no threat to the
shuttle.
The rollback of the shuttle to the safety of the Vehicle
Assembly Building (VAB) was prompted by Hurricane Georges, a powerful
hurricane approaching the south Florida coast. The shuttle was to
begin its six-hour trek from Pad 39B early Thursday morning, but
lightning from an unrelated storm system has delayed the move.
By Thursday night, the hurricane was forecast to pass through
the Straits of Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico, posing no threat
to the space center. KSC officials then decided to keep Discovery on
the pad.
Discovery is scheduled to lift off on the afternoon of October
29 on mission STS-95. The nine-day mission has garnered extraordinary
publicity as it will mark the second flight into space for Senator
John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth.
The 77-year-old Glenn will be the subject of a number of
experiments sponsored by NASA and the National Institute on Aging to
look for links between the aging process and the adaptation to
weightlessness. Those experiments will include research into bone and
muscle loss, balance disorders, and sleeping problems.
The shuttle will also refly the Spartan-201 solar research
satellite. The satellite, designed to fly free from the shuttle for
several days while performing observations of the Sun, failed to
deploy properly on its last flight in November 1997. The tumbling
satellite had to be retrieved in a special spacewalk by two
astronauts.
Discovery will also carry a package of experiments to test
equipment that will be used on the next Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
servicing mission. The equipment tested includes a new cooler that
may be attached to the HST's NICMOS infrared camera, extending its
life, as well as various electronics equipment.
The mission will be commanded by four-time shuttle astronaut
Curtis Brown, with Steven Lindsey as pilot. Mission specialists
include Scott Parazynski, Stephen Robinson, and Spain's Pedro Duque.
Japan's Chiaki Mukai will join Glenn as payload specialists on the
mission. The crew ranges in age from 77-year-old Glenn to Duque, who
was born a little more than a year after Glenn's Mercury flight 36
years ago.
Two New Extrasolar Planets Discovered
A team of astronomers that includes the two most prolific
planet discoverers announced Thursday, September 24, that they had
discovered two more extrasolar planets, one that orbits extremely
close to its parent star and another in a more Earth-like orbit.
One planet, orbiting the Sun-like star HD 187123, orbits the
star at a distance nine times closer than Mercury's distance from the
Sun. The planet, with a minimum mass half that of Jupiter, takes only
three days to complete one orbit of its star.
The other planet, orbiting HD 210277, orbits at a more
Earth-like distance, but has a far more elliptical orbit than the
Earth. The planet, with a mass about 1.4 times that of Jupiter, takes
437 days to complete one orbit.
The discovery of the second planet was significant, according
to co-discoverer Geoff Marcy of San Francisco State University. "We
had discovered planets that orbit much closer and much farther from
their stars than the Earth-Sun distance," he said. "We wondered if
nature rarely puts planets at one Earth-Sun distance. Now we know that
such planets are not rare."
The discoveries were made by an international team of
scientists that includes Marcy and Paul Butler of the Anglo-Australian
Observatory, who together have discovered nine of the 12 extrasolar
planets found to date.
The team's junior member was Kevin Apps, a sophomore at
England's University of Sussex. An avid amateur astronomer, he poured
over Marcy and Butler's initial list of stars to study and suggested
replacing some of them with stars more like the Sun. One of Apps'
replacement stars, accepted by Marcy and Butler, was HD 187123.
"I don't think I can put into words how I feel about Geoff and
Paul finding a planet around one of my suggested targets," Apps said.
The team used a high-resolution spectrograph on one of the
10-meter (33-foot) telescopes at the Keck Observatory to measure the
wobble of stars. The wobble is caused by the gravitational tug on the
star from orbiting planets. The wobble is measured by noting minute
shifts in wavelength in light from the star, caused by the Doppler
effect.
The team has studied 430 stars using the Keck Telescope over
the last nine months. Continuing such observations, Marcy said,
should allow them to discover up to two dozen more Jupiter-sized
planets at the Earth's distance from the Sun in the next two to three
years.
Marcy's big interest, though, is looking for Jupiter-sized
worlds farther away from stars, as is the case in our solar system.
"What we're all about is discovering (planets) where evolution might
have gotten a toehold," Marcy said. "Jupiter-sized planets at a
greater distance from their star would suggest a solar system that
could host a rocky Earth-like planet."
"If it should turn out that out of more than 400 stars, none
has a Jupiter orbiting at five Earth-Sun distances, that would be a
frightening reality," Marcy added. "It might be the first sign that
Earth is truly unusual and so life may be rare."
Engineers Regain Control of SOHO
NASA announced Thursday, September 17, that a team of
engineers successfully regained control of the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft nearly three months after ground errors
sent the spacecraft spinning out of control.
The attitude recovery maneuver was completed September 16 at
2:29pm EDT (1829 UT), NASA said. Engineers commanded SOHO to fire its
thrusters to take it out of its spin and point its solar panels
towards the Sun to generate power.
Contact was lost with SOHO on June 24 when a series of errors
by ground controllers sent the spacecraft spinning, breaking contact
with the Earth. Contact with SOHO was restored in early August, and
engineers have been working since then on procedures to return the
spacecraft to normal condition.
"It's a big step forward in our recovery plan for SOHO," said
Francis Vandenbussche, who heads the SOHO recovery team for the
European Space Agency (ESA). "We were never quite sure that we would
manage to make the spacecraft point back towards the Sun."
The next step, explained ESA SOHO project scientist Bernhard
Fleck, is a slow, comprehensive check of all the spacecraft systems
and the scientific instruments used to study the Sun. Some
instruments were subjected to temperature ranges of -100 to +100
degrees Celsius (-148 to +212 degrees Fahrenheit).
"We shall take our time and go step by step," Fleck said, "but
I'm cautiously optimistic that SOHO can win back much of its
scientific capacity for observing the Sun."
SOHO, a joint ESA/NASA mission to study the Sun, was launched
in December 1995. It completed its primary mission in April, after
which ESA and NASA agreed on an extended mission through 2003 to study
the Sun as it passed through the peak of its 11-year cycle of
activity. The ability of SOHO to continue this mission will depend on
the status of the instruments and other spacecraft systems.
NASA and ESA are also continuing a review of all ground
systems used to control the spacecraft, based on recommendations of a
report released earlier in the month about the June 24 accident. That
report pinned the blame on the accident on ground controllers, who
relied on a gyroscope on SOHO that had been previously disconnected as
well as another one which was in an improper mode.
Gamma Ray Burst Had Effect on Atmosphere
A powerful gamma ray burst detected in late August had an
effect on the Earth's atmosphere, increasing the electrical activity
in the ionosphere to daytime levels, scientists reported September 29.
Researchers at Stanford University's Very Low Research Group
found that when the gamma ray burst hit the Earth's atmosphere on the
night of August 27, electrical activity increased from normally
quiescent nighttime levels to the much higher levels seen during the
day. The levels remained high for the five-minute duration of the
burst.
"It is amazing that such a burst could produce ionization
levels similar to those produced by all the radiation coming from the
Sun," said Umran Inan, professor of electrical engineering at
Stanford. "It was as if night was briefly turned into day in the
ionosphere."
The ionization increase was caused by the powerful gamma and
X-rays stripping electrons from atoms in the tenuous ionosphere. The
burst has about the same intensity as a dental X-ray, scientists said,
and posed no threat to life on Earth.
The burst was traced back to SGR 1900+14, a distant object
thought to be a magnetar, a neutron star with an intense magnetic
field. The object is one of four known soft-gamma repeaters, objects
which will occasionally release a burst of gamma rays.
Inan said similar increased in ionospheric activity had been
seen in the past, but the cause of them were unknown. Thus, "this may
be the first time that a transient extra-solar phenomenon has
measurably affected a part of the Earth's environment," he said.
The sudden burst of energy from the magnetar, believed th be
caused by a "starquake" on the surface of the star, was also detected
in early September by radio astronomers. They detected radio waves
emitted by particles accelerated away from the magnetar by its intense
magnetic field.
"All this goes to show that the Earth does not exist in
splendid isolation," said Inan. "We now know that the Earth's physical
environment is affected not only by our own sun but by energy
originating from distant parts of our universe."
Mir Cosmonauts Complete Brief Internal Spacewalk
Two Mir cosmonauts spent less than an hour -- far less time
than expected -- completing repairs inside the unpressurized Spektr
module Tuesday evening, September 15.
The spacewalk began at 4:00 pm EDT (2000 UT) as cosmonauts
Gennady Padalka and Sergei Avdeyev entered the Spektr module to
reconnect cables for the solar panels mounted outside the station.
The spacewalk ended after just half an hour, although they had planned
to spend three hours on the task.
The reconnected cables should permit the panels to be turned
remotely, allowing them to be oriented to capture the maximum possible
amount of sunlight and convert it into electricity.
"We now have to turn the whole station toward the sun in order
to preserve power, while the normal mode of operation envisages
turning the panels," Viktor Blagov, deputy chief of mission control,
told the Itar-Tass news agency.
A Russian Space Agency spokesman also hinted that Mir,
scheduled to be deorbited in mid-1999, might stay up even longer.
Vyacheslav Mikhailichenko told Reuters that further delays with the
Russian-built Service Module for the International Space Station,
caused by Russian economic woes, may prompt Russia to keep Mir in
orbit until the Service Module can be launched.
"As long as the International Space Station is not in orbit it
doesn't make sense to bring Mir down," Mikhailichenko said. "What if
the new station turns out not to work? Technology is technology after
all."
Astronomers See Dust Disks in Binary Star System
Astronomers using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope
have detected evidence of large dust disks -- from which planets are
believed to form -- around both stars in a binary star system,
evidence that many more stars could support planets than first
thought.
An international team led by Luis Rodriguez of the National
Autonomous University in Mexico City detected the disks around both
stars of a binary system 450 light years from Earth in the
constellation Taurus. The two stars, separated from one another by
only slightly more than the distance between the Sun and Pluto, each
have disks that extend out to Saturn's distance from the Sun.
The finding was a surprise, since astronomers had assumed the
gravitational effects of the two stars would prevent protoplanetary
disks from forming. "It was surprising to see these disks in a binary
system with the stars so close together," Rodriguez said.
While the astronomers did not detect any planets in the disks,
there is enough material there to support their formation. "Each of
these disks contains enough mass to form a solar system like our own,"
said team member David Willner of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics.
"However," he noted, "we don't think these solar systems would
be able to form outer, icy planets like Uranus and Neptune, because of
the small size of the dust disks."
Dust disks seen around other stars appear to extend to up to
100 AU (15 billion kilometers, 9.3 billion miles) from the star, about
ten times farther than the disks seen around these stars.
Had the two stars formed a few times closer, the astronomers
noted, the gravitational forces would have been enough to prevent the
disks from forming. "If these disks form planetary systems, they would
be among the closest possible adjacent sets of planets in the
universe," said Rodriguez.
Alan Boss, a theorist at the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, notes that if a giant planet formed at the edge of these
disks, the gravitational tug-of-war between the planet and the two
stars could eject the planet from the system.
This could explain TMR-1C, an object discovered in May by
astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope. The object, located in
the same dust cloud as this binary system, is thought to have been
ejected from another binary system. Further studies are planned to
determine if TMR-1C is a planet or a heavier brown dwarf star.
Mars Global Surveyor Resumes Aerobraking
After two false starts earlier in the month, the Mars Global
Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft successfully resumed aerobraking with a
thruster burn on Wednesday, September 23.
The 14.8-second firing of the main thruster on MGS altered its
orbit so that the spacecraft passes through the upper fringes of the
Martian atmosphere, slowing down the spacecraft and circularizing its
orbit with each pass.
The aerobraking was originally scheduled to begin on September
14, but a problem with the backup receiver on the spacecraft's antenna
delayed the aerobraking for three days.
A computer glitch then delayed the aerobraking just hours
before it was to begin September 17. A faulty command placed the
solar panels of MGS in the wrong orientation, reducing the amount of
electricity they could generate. the spacecraft drained much of the
charge in its batteries until the problem was corrected.
With the batteries recharged and other problems resolved,
controllers were able to restart the aerobraking as planned.
Aerobraking will continue for four and a half months, as drag from
repeated passes through the upper atmosphere moves the spacecraft's
orbit into the desired circular mapping orbit.
The aerobraking operation was originally planned to take place
between September of 1997 and last January, but was delayed when a
solar panel began bending beyond its design limits. Fearing continued
aerobraking could snap the panel off, the aerobraking was halted last
October until a plan to split the aerobraking into two longer, less
intense sections, was adopted. MGS will enter its final mapping orbit
in March of 1999, one year later than planned.
Senate Hearing Explores Government Launch Incentives
Both the administrator of NASA and leading members of the
launch industry encouraged the development of government incentives,
ranging from tax credits to guaranteed loans, to promote the
development of new, low cost, reusable launch vehicles.
Speaking at a hearing of the U.S. Senate's Science,
Technology, and Space subcommittee Wednesday, September 23, NASA
administrator Dan Goldin said current high launch costs is inhibiting
not only the commercial development of space, but future uses by NASA.
"The potential for the future seems almost limitless," Goldin
said, but noting that NASA spends more than $4 billion a year on
launch costs, "without affordable and reliable access to space, this
potential will remain unrealized."
Goldin said a NASA analysis of the launch industry indicated
that if private industry developed a large reusable launch vehicle on
its own, it could lower the price per pound to orbit to around $2,500.
Government incentives, though, could lower that per pound cost to as
little as $1,000. "The contrast is stark, and could make all the
difference in opening up space."
Goldin outlined four kinds of government incentives that could
help private industry develop new low-cost launch vehicles. Through
research and development support, guaranteed government loans, advance
purchase agreements of launch vehicles, and tax credits and holidays,
new affordable launch vehicles can be developed.
Goldin had a sympathetic ear from Senator John Breaux (D-LA),
who earlier this year introduced S.2121, the Space Launch Cost
Reduction Act. Breaux's bill includes many of the incentives outlined
by Goldin, including government loan guarantees administered by NASA.
"I am a big believer in the private sector," Breaux said.
"But while we are competing with other countries that are not
market-based economies, it is important that we be able to compete."
The idea of government loan guarantees was criticized earlier
this year by two space activist organizations, the National Space
Society and the Space Frontier Foundation, who feared such a program
would allow NASA to pick "winners" among established aerospace
companies while stifling innovative new projects.
"Federal loan guarantees sound nice, but they are a bad idea
that will wreck the embryonic reusable space transportation industry
by warping the market and stifling innovation," SFF president Rick
Tumlinson said in June.
Some members of the launch industry are in favor of loan
guarantees. Jerry Rising of Lockheed Martin's X-33 project told the
committee that the most effective means "of facilitating private
investor confidence would be through a government loan program."
SpaceViews Event Horizon
October 1: 40th Anniversary of the creation of NASA
October 2: OSC Taurus launch of the STEX satellite from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
October 7: Ariane 4 launch of the Eutelsat-W2 and Sirius-3
satellites from Kourou, French Guiana
October 8: Atlas 2AS launch of the Hot Bird 5 satellite from Cape
Canaveral, Florida.
October 9-11: Space Frontier Foundation Conference, Los Angeles,
California
(http://www.space-frontier.org/EVENTS/SFC7/)
October 11-16: American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary
Sciences annual meeting, Madison, Wisconsin
October 19: Atlas 2A launch of the UHF-F9 satellite from Cape
Canaveral, Florida
October 22: Pegasus XL launch of the SCD-2/Wing GLove payloads
from off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida
October 25: Delta 2 launch of Deep Space-1 and SEDSAT-1 from Cape
Canaveral, Florida
October 29: Launch of shuttle on mission STS-95 (John Glenn
flight)
Other News
Ariane, ORBCOMM Launches: Ariane 4 and Pegasus XL rockets
successfully placed satellites into orbit in September. An Ariane 4
booster launched a PanAmSat communications satellite into orbit early
Wednesday, September 16, from Kourou, French Guiana. The PAS-7
satellite will go into geosynchronous orbit over the Indian Ocean. It
is designed to provide video and telecommunications services
throughout the region in conjunction with PAS-4, an existing PanAmSat
satellite. An Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) Pegasus booster
launched eight ORBCOMM satellites into orbit early Wednesday,
September 23, completing a constellation of 28 satellites that will
provide worldwide messaging services. The system is expected to go
into full commercial service in a few months, after the new satellites
are checked out.
Space For Sale: NASA is considering selling to companies the rights
to display their logo during NASA media events, an industry newsletter
reported Tuesday, September 21. According to "Science & Government
Report", a newsletter published by John Wiley and Sons' Technical
Insights subsidiary, a Congressionally-mandated report to be delivered
to the space agency soon will recommend a wide range of advertising
ventures that could raise funding for NASA. The first step would be
to sell the rights to display corporate logos during NASA media
events, and would grow to include advertising during the construction
of the space station and the possibility of allowing the entertainment
industry to use the space shuttle and station.
More Human Studies Needed: Additional studies, both on the ground and
in orbit, of the effects of weightlessness on the human body are
needed as missions become longer, a panel of medical experts recently
concluded. In a report released September 22, the Committee on Space
Biology and Medicine, part of the Space Studies Board of the National
Research Council, issued a report calling for additional studies to
see how long-duration space flight might adversely affect both the
human body and the mind. Of greatest importance, the committee
concluded, were studies of how weightlessness affects bone and muscle
mass, blood pressure, orientation, and movement.
Dust Rings Around Jupiter: Data from the Galileo spacecraft show that
Jupiter's system of thin, intricate rings is formed from dust from the
planet's innermost small moons, scientists announced Tuesday,
September 15. Using images from Galileo, scientists from Cornell
University and the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) saw
that one of Jupiter's three rings, a dim "gossamer" ring, has one ring
embedded inside another, with both composed of dust from the small
inner moons of Amalthea and Thebe. The dust likely comes from
collisions of asteroid or comet fragments with the moons.
Globalstar Restructures: Globalstar announced Tuesday, September 22,
plans to recover from a failed Zenit launch earlier in the month by
purchasing additional Delta and Soyuz launches to put its
communications satellite constellation in orbit next year. The company
announced a plan to move up three Soyuz launches, originally planned
for early 1999, to November and December of 1998 and January of 1999.
The company will then select from among five additional Soyuz
launches, six Delta 2 launches of four satellites each, and two Zenit
launches of 12 satellites each with the goal of placing an additional
12 satellites in orbit by May 1999 and 16 more by the end of the year.
In Brief: Scientists from the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
using data from Mars Pathfinder, believe that the bulk composition of
the planet Mars does not match that of carbonaceous chrondites, a
common class of meteorite thought to be left over from the formation
of the solar system, placing into doubt a commonly-held theory of
planetary formation... The first of four 8.2-meter mirrors of the Very
Large Telescope in Chile is returning scientific data, European
astronomers reported. The telescope collected 100 hours of data in
late August and September... A Congressional conference committee
agreed September 17 to reclassify communications satellites as
munitions, making them harder to export to China for launch on Long
March boosters. The Clinton Administration said in the past it would
veto any bill that made such a reclassification... NASA turns 40 years
old on October 1. Happy Birthday! But, is it time for a mid-life
crisis?...
*** Articles ***
The Beginnings of America's Man in Space Program
by Andrew J. LePage
Introduction
On October 1, 1958 - days short of the first Sputnik
anniversary - the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
officially came into being. After months of study and debate in the
wake of the launching of the first Soviet satellites, the United
States government reached a consensus on how the country should
proceed into the Space Age when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 on July 29.
NASA was formed around the existing NACA (National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics) which had been under the direction of Hugh
L. Dryden. Appointed as NASA's first administrator was T. Keith
Glennan while Dryden became his deputy. While the military would
continue to run space projects related to the needs of national
security, all purely scientific space programs under military control
would eventually be transferred to NASA. This included, much to the
chagrin of officials in the Department of Defense, the United States'
nascent man-in-space effort.
Early Studies
The genesis of what would become America's first manned space
programs can be traced back to July 14, 1952 when the NACA executive
committee passed a resolution to "devote modest effort to problems of
unmanned and manned flights at altitudes from 50 miles to infinity and
at speeds from Mach 10 to escape from earth's gravity." The direct
result of this resolution was the X-15 program conducted jointly by
NACA, the USAF, and the U.S. Navy starting in December of 1954. This
advanced rocket-powered aircraft would fly to the edge of space at 80
kilometers (50 miles) and as fast as Mach 7. It would bridge the
performance gap between existing X-planes and what was needed to meet
NACA's ultimate goal.
The next step lead to joint NACA and USAF studies of still
higher flying manned aircraft or the "Manned Glide Rocket Research
System". Conducted under the aegis of the USAF's ARDC (Air Research
and Development Command) starting in March 1956, this set of studies
eventually lead to the "Dyna-Soar" or X-20 program. At the same time
ARDC also established a parallel research project for a manned
ballistic capsule known as "The Manned Ballistic Rocket Research
System". Since the development of a simple ballistic capsule would
require much less time than an aerospace glider, such a program could
give the USAF much needed experience in this new environment in the
shortest time possible. As had been done in many earlier USAF
research programs, NACA was invited to participate.
Although there was a vocal minority in the NACA hierarchy who
were against involvement in a purely ballistic approach to manned
spaceflight, by early 1956 there had already been much research
conducted at NACA laboratories on the subject. As a result of
hypervelocity experiments performed during June 1952, a team of
scientists and engineers under H. Julian Allen at the High-Speed
Research Division of NACA's Ames Aeronautical Laboratory (now NASA
Ames Research Center) discovered that a blunt body minimized heating
during a hypersonic reentry into the atmosphere. The previous
conventional wisdom held that a slender shape would be preferred but
studies had shown that they produced more heat than any known
materials could withstand. Allen and his team had now solved this
thermal barrier problem with their counterintuitive blunt shape in
which 90% of the heat is absorbed by the shock wave generated during
reentry.
On April 28, 1953 Allen and Alfred J. Eggers Jr. of Ames
co-authored a secret NACA report detailing their findings. This
report, which was distributed to missile contractors and the military
that spring, heavily influenced the designs of the first generation of
ICBM warheads and subsequent manned spacecraft.
Choosing the Best Approach
In early 1954 Allen, Eggers and Stanford E. Neice of Ames
wrote a now classic paper on atmospheric reentry entitled "A
Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Long-Range Hypervelocity
Vehicles". In this paper they compared the advantages and
disadvantages of three different reentry body configurations: A blunt
no-lift body, a high-drag lifting body, and a low-drag gliding body.
These three concepts would be the focus of manned spaceflight research
in the following years.
Eggers went on to present a modified version of this paper at
the annual meeting of the American Rocket Society in San Francisco in
June of 1957. At the time he was convinced that a glider would be a
better approach to manned spaceflight than a simple ballistic capsule.
While the total heat load would be greater, a glider's heating rate
would be much lower as would be the G-forces during reentry. A glider
would also be maneuverable and allow the pilot to make a precision
landing. Unfortunately it was soon realized that such a spacecraft
would be too heavy for any military rockets then envisioned to lift
into orbit.
Eggers then began to push for a lighter and simpler
lifting-body design (originally proposed in an Ames report on
hypersonic flight released in January of 1957) as a compromise between
the ballistic capsule and the glider. His design, called M-1, was a
triangular shaped craft about 3 meters (10 feet) wide and 2 meters (7
feet) long with a rounded underside and a flat top. Looking like a
quarter of an egg, this design would minimize heating and G-forces
during reentry and allow 320 kilometers (200 miles) of cross-range and
1300 kilometers (800 miles) of down-range maneuverability in a package
that military rockets could handle.
The third concept using a simple ballistic capsule was
championed by a team at NACA's Langley Aeronautical Laboratory (now
NASA Langley Research Center) who wrote a minority view in the
appendix of the January 1957 Ames report. During the mid-1950s Maxime
A. Faget, Robert O. Piland, and a team of engineers at Langley's
Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD) had conducted a series of
flight tests with models of blunt bodies under the supervision of
Langley's Associate Director, Robert R. Gilruth, in an effort to
extend Allen's original work. They felt that a blunt, nonlifting
shape like a sphere would offer the best chances of getting a man into
orbit in the shortest time.
While the M-1 design held much promise and stimulated further
research into lifting bodies (which continues to this day), NACA
management began to favor Langley's ballistic approach due to its
simplicity. In parallel with the USAF efforts in the manned ballistic
rocket project (which eventually became known as MIS or
"Man-In-Space") and those of a group of 11 contractors who answered
the ARDC call for proposals, Langley engineers continued to slowly
develop the design and specifications for a manned ballistic space
capsule during the months leading to the Space Age.
The Dawn of the Space Age
After the launch of Sputnik, the entire country was struck by
a sense of panic. And with the launching of Sputnik 2 in November
1958 with its canine passenger, it was clear that the Soviet Union
were taking the first steps needed to send a man into space. During
this time, NACA leaders sought to determine what role their
organization would play in an American manned spaceflight effort. But
in addition to the NACA plans and the USAF MIS study (which quickly
became MISS or "Man In Space - Soonest"), the U.S. Army and Navy also
started pushing their own proposals for a manned space mission.
The Army proposal originated from the Wernher von Braun's team
at the ABMA (Army Ballistic Missile Agency). Initially called "Man
Very High" and later known as Project Adam, their proposal called for
using a modified Redstone rocket to launch a manned capsule on a short
suborbital flight. The ABMA proposal was essentially an updated
version of the British Interplanetary Society's V-2-based Megaroc
concept. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics proposal, called Mer I for
"Manned Earth Reconnaissance I", envisioned a cylindrical spacecraft
with deployable wings launched on a two-stage rocket. As with other
aspects of the nation's space program, ARPA (Advanced Research
Projects Agency) was put in charge of coordinating all these efforts
in the spring of 1958. From the start ARPA clearly preferred the MISS
proposal but whoever finally got the project, NACA was guaranteed a
leading role due to their experience in the field.
Still, as the spring of 1958 approached, it was becoming
increasing clear that the nation's space program would be run not by
ARPA but by a civilian agency and NACA had already quietly accepted
the task. Because of this and growing differences in opinion between
NACA and USAF over the best way to proceed with MISS, NACA began to
quietly break out and push its own ideas among the various military
and civilian study groups and panels that were set up to consider the
issue. In order to bring their own ideas into the forefront, NACA
sponsored the Conference on High Speed Aerodynamics from March 18 to
20, 1958 where NACA engineers presented their proposals for a manned
space mission to a group of military, industrial, and contractor
personnel.
During this symposium, the NACA management's eventual plan was
outlined in a Langley paper by Faget, Benjamin Garland, and James J.
Buglia. They proposed a 3.35 meter (11 foot) long, roughly conical
shaped ballistic capsule with a 2.13 meter (7 foot) in diameter heat
sink mounted on its blunt end. The pilot would be strapped into a
form fitting couch to better withstand the G-forces associated with
launch and reentry. Because the effects of spaceflight on the pilot
were totally unknown, the simple capsule would be designed to operate
automatically. Unlike the USAF which wanted to develop a new
Thor-based launch vehicle for MISS, NACA wanted to use the Atlas ICBM
(which had just begun test flights) to orbit their capsule.
Once in orbit, the capsule would be turned so that it traveled
blunt-side first using small gas jets to control attitude. A solid
retrorocket package would then be used to slow the capsule enough to
perform a high drag, no-lift reentry into Earth's atmosphere at the
end of the mission. By June 1958 Langley's Faget and Charles W.
Mathews had already completed the first draft of the manned
satellite's preliminary specifications based on this concept that NACA
officials clearly preferred.
Project Mercury is Born
As ARPA and the USAF continued to jockey for position
throughout mid-1958 in a bid to monopolize the manned space program,
NACA engineers continued to refine their space capsule design and
specifications. But the unofficial competition for the manned space
program ended on August 18 when President Eisenhower finally decided
that the soon to be created NASA would be in charge. Money ARPA had
allocated for MISS would be transferred to NASA along with the funding
for other scientific space projects that had been given to NASA.
To ease the program's transition, a Joint NASA-ARPA Manned
Satellite Panel headed by Gilruth was established on September 17,
1958 to make final recommendations to NASA for the manned program.
Their proposals were submitted to Glennan and ARPA director Roy
Johnson between October 3 and 7. On October 7 NASA formally organized
its manned space program and gave it the task of placing a capsule in
orbit, investigating the pilot's reaction to the orbital environment,
and safely recovering the pilot and capsule. By the end of October,
NASA representatives had already started negotiations to procure the
rockets they needed for their project.
By November 5, 1958 NASA's new Director of the Office of Space
Flight Programs, Abe Silverstein, had organized the STG (Space Task
Group) at Langley to run the manned space program. Gilruth was
appointed as Director of the program with his former Technical
Assistant, Charles J. Donlan, assigned as his deputy. Faget became
the Flight System Chief in charge of the spacecraft's design while
another former-PARD member, Piland, became Assistant Chief for
Advanced Projects. With NASA's manned space program management team
and an initial staff of 33 people in place, the program's pace began
to accelerate.
On November 7, 1958 40 perspective bidders met at Langley for
a briefing from STG engineers on their vision of the manned space
capsule. About half expressed continued interest in the project and
on November 14 they received a copy of the 50-page document entitled
"Specifications for Manned Space Capsule". On December 11 STG
received bids from 11 contractors for the manned space capsule. After
STG established component assessment teams to review the bids, the
long task of choosing a contractor for America's first manned space
capsule began.
But as the pace of the manned program began to pick up, there
was a need to give the new project a name. While several were
proposed, on November 26 Glennan and Dryden choose Silverstein's
suggestion which he had based on Greek mythology. On December 17,
1958 NASA officially announced it - Project Mercury.
Bibliography
David Baker, The History of Manned Spaceflight, Crown Publishers, 1981
William M. Bland Jr., "Project Mercury", in The History of Rocket
Technology, Eugene M. Emme (editor), Wayne State University Press, pp.
212-240, 1963
Eugene M. Emme, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1915-1960, NASA, 1961
Loyd S. Swenson Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This
New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury, NASA, SP-4201, 1966
[continued in part 2]
----------
-
- To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address:
- To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com
- Subject: anything
- unsubscribe SpaceViews
-
- E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net
-
- SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS),
- copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society
- www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com)
From VM Tue Oct 6 17:46:57 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5872" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:38:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "162" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5872
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11298
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11283
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AXPa22057
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:42 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <9ef902ce.361ab812@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:42 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group
>
>Steve VanDevender wrote:
>
>> KellySt@aol.com writes:
>> > This runs into the two big questions:
>> > - Who'ld pay for all this?
>> > - Why?
>> >
>> > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval
missino.
>> > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top.
>>
>> With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
>> can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
>> exploration.
>>
>> When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
>> technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
>> question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
>> will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
>> colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
>> interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
>> expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
>> far less.
>>
>> In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
>> different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
>> sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
>> that.
>
>Thanks for the eloquent reply. The most believable scenario achieveable by
2050
>that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and
>particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt-
based
>infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then
pulse
>propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with
neutron
>damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium
>reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power
scenarios,
Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse fusino
system.
>but
>they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a
bit
>hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or
fusion
>systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050?
You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have
masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't
afford them. But then perhaps perfcting such systems could drive a government
to fund such a program as a show peice.
>
>I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is
filled
>with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is
underway.
>That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off-
Earth
>than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common-
place.
>Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber-
augmentation,
>plus
>various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be
able
>to
>go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void.
These are a lot od assumption. The one thing we did all agree was that we
couldn'r seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would
credably be.
>
>I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are
fusion
>drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion
pulse,
>we
>haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high-
Tc
>superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what
is
>possible?
We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the next
50 years into functioning drives. Life support and food storage that would
last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all we
need to build a 40ish% od c system. Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed
power and fusino system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However unless
some manufacturing advace brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for it.
>If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha
>Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What
would
>it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand
HLLV
>flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs,
and
>the
>risks of terrorism and so forth.
Actually it would be harder to do multri century flight, and really stupid to
do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make
increadable strides, so unless you can get there in a couple decades, you
should just wait for a faster ship.
>
>So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly
>possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class
liberals
>that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some
>god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety
of
>reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are
more
>likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a
life,
>it'll be a life.
Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay
their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing
Manhatten.
Since the resources of this star system could support any conceavable
planetary civilization for tens of thopusands of years. There'ld be no need
to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch a
interstellar colony?
>
>So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small
scale
>Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not
>several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's
really
>silly.
Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it, but
someday we'll be able too.
>
>Adam
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 6 17:46:57 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1808" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:38:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1808
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11698
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11690
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IBPa17800
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:38 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c782eb4d.361ab80e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:38:38 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > This runs into the two big questions:
> > - Who'ld pay for all this?
> > - Why?
> >
> > We could never figure out why anyone would fund a exploration leval
missino.
> > a migratino through the galaxy mission is really over the top.
>
>With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
>can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
>exploration.
>
>When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
>technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
>question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
>will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
>colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
>interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
>expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
>far less.
>
>In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
>different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
>sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
>that.
Two problems with that.
1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar
missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within
the next century or two.
2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid.
In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down
the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich
enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a
flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home.
Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss.
Kelly
From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:28 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2450" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "18:28:39" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "52" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2450
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00167
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00156
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08396
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA04757;
Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:28:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13850.50119.450681.822957@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <c782eb4d.361ab80e@aol.com>
References: <c782eb4d.361ab80e@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>
> >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
> >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
> >exploration.
> >
> >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
> >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
> >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
> >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
> >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
> >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
> >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
> >far less.
> >
> >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
> >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
> >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
> >that.
>
> Two problems with that.
>
> 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar
> missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within
> the next century or two.
>
> 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid.
I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
stage an interstellar exploration mission.
Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
> In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down
> the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich
> enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a
> flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home.
>
> Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss.
That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are
plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to
bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had
that concept), such as the people who colonized the South
Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago.
You seem to be considering only recent European examples of
colonization.
From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:28 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3041" "Tue" "6" "October" "1998" "20:54:43" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "64" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3041
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14785
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA14774
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante05.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante05.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.7])
by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id UAA28636 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:44 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id UAA31840 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <13850.50119.450681.822957@localhost.efn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810062047530.50000-100000@dante05.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to
push against.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Acttually, a few european colonies have been started for religious
reasons, such as the Puritans, quakers, and later the mormons in Utah. I
don't know how plausible interstellar pilgrimage is, but I can see the
appeal for some group to leave "babylon" behind and set out for the
promised land. A large group with a strong vision and strong finances
could do this even prior to more "public" colony projects.
Best Regards
Nels Lindberg
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
> >
> > >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
> > >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
> > >exploration.
> > >
> > >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
> > >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
> > >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
> > >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
> > >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
> > >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
> > >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
> > >far less.
> > >
> > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
> > >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
> > >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
> > >that.
> >
> > Two problems with that.
> >
> > 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar
> > missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within
> > the next century or two.
> >
> > 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid.
>
> I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
> we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
> stage an interstellar exploration mission.
>
> Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
> still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
> starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
> technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
>
> > In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down
> > the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich
> > enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a
> > flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home.
> >
> > Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss.
>
> That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are
> plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to
> bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had
> that concept), such as the people who colonized the South
> Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago.
> You seem to be considering only recent European examples of
> colonization.
>
From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6795" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:22:56" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "193" "Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6795
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08564
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA08545
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 05:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne8p46.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.47]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA19703 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:24:51 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9ef902ce.361ab812@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 22:22:56 +1000
Hi Group,
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>
> >
> >The most believable scenario achieveable by
> 2050
> >that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser and
> >particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt-
> based
> >infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed then
> pulse
> >propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with
> neutron
> >damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so deuterium
> >reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power
> scenarios,
>
> Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse fusino
> system.
Such as? What fuels can we use? Lithium? Does anyone know how to start a lithium
reaction?
>
>
> >but
> >they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and that's a
> bit
> >hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or
> fusion
> >systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050?
>
> You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have
> masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't
> afford them. But then perhaps perfecting such systems could drive a government
> to fund such a program as a show piece.
Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von neumann
replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge
solettas won't be unreasonable. I suspect any really high energy system will be
some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher efficiency,
at least in principle.
>
>
> >
> >I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System is
> filled
> >with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is
> underway.
> >That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live off-
> Earth
> >than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common-
> place.
> >Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber-
> augmentation,
> >plus
> >various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be
> able
> >to
> >go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void.
>
> These are a lot of assumptions.
True.
> The one thing we did all agree was that we
> couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would
> credibly be.
I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with
independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of
space-interest groups.]
>
>
> >
> >I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are
> fusion
> >drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion
> pulse,
> >we
> >haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength, high-
> Tc
> >superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say what
> is
> >possible?
>
> We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the next
> 50 years into functioning drives.
We do? Have you seen DoD research that the rest of us haven't?
> Life support and food storage that would
> last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all we
> need to build a 40ish% of c system.
0.4c! Are you kidding? What sort of mass-ratio do you need for that using fusion?
1000/1?
> Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed
> power and fusinon system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However unless
> some manufacturing advance brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for it.
Perhaps we should invoke ultra-cheap nano-systems so starflight is possible by
2050.
>
>
> >If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha
> >Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make. What
> would
> >it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand
> HLLV
> >flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those bombs,
> and
> >the
> >risks of terrorism and so forth.
>
> Actually it would be harder to do multi century flight, and really stupid to
> do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make
> incredible strides, so unless you can get there in a couple of decades, you
> should just wait for a faster ship.
Which is why I posited Orion. It is unreasonable for manned starflight, but my
point was it's what we can do NOW.
>
>
> >
> >So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly
> >possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class
> liberals
> >that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's some
> >god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole variety
> of
> >reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states are
> more
> >likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of a
> life,
> >it'll be a life.
>
> Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay
> their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing
> Manhatten.
It won't be if they're independent.
>
>
> Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable
> planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years.
Millions if it's static.
> There'd be no need
> to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch a
> interstellar colony?
Why? Why not?
>
>
> >
> >So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not small
> scale
> >Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years, not
> >several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and that's
> really
> >silly.
>
> Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it, but
> someday we'll be able too.
Assumes more than we can know. I believe we'll be able to, but that's no guarantee
it'll ever happen. The really silly aspect is the accelerations required. At a gee
it takes years to get around, even when we're counting tau time and not flat time.
Anything quicker requires higher accelerations. Unless you cancel inertia or want
to float in a tank like a newt, then it's impossible to fit a starflight into just
a couple of years. Small groups wouldn't survive over the years realistically
needed to get between stars, so I think the minimum would be ~ 500. A Greek city
state size of 10,000 - 30,000 would be better, and more likely to spend a few
years processing Jovian gases or comet ices to get the fuel.
But I'm just guessing. Anyone got a way of boosting a ship to 0.999995 c in a
hurry?
Adam
From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2090" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "16:06:46" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2090
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25180
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (O1Hu6grRJAE682mOp4SwYJU5l16tfv63@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA25170
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id QAA24035
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:06:47 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981007155427.21921A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:06:46 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, AJ Crowl wrote:
>
> Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von neumann
> replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge
> solettas won't be unreasonable. I suspect any really high energy system will be
> some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher efficiency,
> at least in principle.
>
Well, i would personnaly VERY MUCH recomend against the use of von Neuman
machines, at least in the forseeable future. Given that you'd esentially
be creating an artificial species, machine or organic makes no fundamental
difference. And given that any spiecies will try to survive and prosper,
there is no guarantee that WE will be in control.
>
> > The one thing we did all agree was that we
> > couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would
> > credibly be.
>
> I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with
> independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of
> space-interest groups.]
>
What do you mean by independant CylCits. Have you got a description
somewhere? (Website or so...)
> >
> > Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to pay
> > their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and removing
> > Manhatten.
>
> It won't be if they're independent.
>
Well, independance is only posible for those that are strong. (Or have
strong allies.)
I certanly don't see city-sized independant groups as a stable posibilty.
The Stronger comunities/states will simply consume the weaker ones IMO.
The Strong consuming the weak is one of the few constants in human
culture, always has been, always will be.
> >
> >
> > Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable
> > planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years.
>
> Millions if it's static.
>
yeah and probably only a few centuries if can manage to grow
exponentially. (Say a doubling of the resourses exploited each decade
would be nice.)
Bjorn.
From VM Wed Oct 7 09:45:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2732" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "10:36:29" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "52" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to p ush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2732
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA07012
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA07006
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3GLB>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:36:30 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to p
ush against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:36:29 -0400
> ----------
> From: Steve VanDevender[SMTP:stevev@efn.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and
> something to push against.
>
> I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
> we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
> stage an interstellar exploration mission.
>
> Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
> still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
> starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
> technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
>
Well, I think we can all agree that it is economically unlikely for an
interstellar mission to be launched within the next fifty years. I
suppose one might ask the question whether or not that matters? I think
the original idea was to discuss the mission from a more technical
standpoint, although I certainly wouldn't want to exclude other
discussions. Would it be worthwhile to instead discuss the question:
"How would we get to a nearby star given that there is a directive to go
(the reason being irrelevant) and that there are unlimited funds (well,
limited by the planet's resources), launching in 2050?" Or would
everyone feel uncomfortable with a discussion on that level?
Now, by "unlimited funds" I don't mean building a starship the size of
our moon - there's still a question of what we can physically accomplish
by the time the launch deadline comes around. If we took the next fifty
years to build something (coming up with something enormous) we'd be
limited by a design of today (i.e. fission, sail, etc). If we want to
use a design from 2040 (i.e. fusion, maybe antimatter), we'd have to be
able to build it in ten years.
Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
"interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
next). Will it be possible or not?
My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
everyone else think?
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Wed Oct 7 10:19:00 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["143" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "12:09:43" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 143
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16738
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16724
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p202.gnt.com [204.49.89.202])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA06170;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:10:59 -0500
Message-ID: <000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "David Levine" <david@playlink.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ...
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:09:43 -0500
Will it be possible or not?
>
> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> everyone else think?
I vote YES.
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 7 10:19:00 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["890" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "12:09:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 890
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16814
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16799
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p202.gnt.com [204.49.89.202])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA06164;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:10:56 -0500
Message-ID: <000501bdf215$44951d60$d65931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <361B5D19.F9A6EA39@ozemail.com.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:09:37 -0500
Adam,
Kelly is correct, there are pulse fusion systems around that don't produce
lots of neutrons, you even named one - Orion.
Current concepts for pulsed fusion are somewhat more refined than Orion,
which no one is seriously considering anymore. Try
http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/Index.html for an in-depth look at one of the
newest concepts which is currently being tested by PSU, JPL and the USAF.
The current incarnation is neutron intensive but the technology scales to
Lithium or Boron fairly well. I wouldn't think it would be unreasonable to
see second or even third generation engines in use by 2050, which would
allow access to most of the Solar system within only a few months time, and
given sufficient fuel, could propel a probe to the stars at up to .99 c.
Your guess at the fuel ratio was, however, a little optimistic. It is more
like 10,000 or even 100,000 to 1.
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 7 10:45:43 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2373" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:35:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "57" "starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2373
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA04840
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04818
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA08780; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:35:30 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810071735.SAA08780@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:35:30 +0100 (MET)
> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
> [...]
>
> Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
> an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
> "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
> on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives).
> I don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> next). Will it be possible or not?
>
> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> everyone else think?
>
Good question.
There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid.
Mine is "possibly, provided...".
More precisely, I see two basic problems here:
1. Propulsion
2. Infrastructure
Ad. 1: Propulsion
-----------------
I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough
occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
from our perspective, namely:
- fusion rocket;
- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
a prototype build and tested in space.
As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
in the foreseable future.
Ad. 2: Infrastructure
---------------------
I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without
extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines
and space factories. It must of course start from building
permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow -
it is even more annoyning than the slow progres in point (1) above,
as the progress in this area already needs no essential breaktroughs
in science or technology, only the will and money.
Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
is very, very low.
-- Zenon Kulpa
* * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * *
http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan]
From VM Wed Oct 7 11:37:08 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["647" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "11:31:51" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 647
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA04615
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04600
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06690
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA08587;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13851.45975.952815.959506@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker>
References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com>
<000601bdf215$4723b780$d65931cc@lparker>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ...
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
L. Parker writes:
> Will it be possible or not?
> >
> > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> > everyone else think?
>
> I vote YES.
>
> Lee
I wasn't really intending to call into question the currently
stated goal of the design project to build a manned interstellar
mission by 2050. All I really meant to say was that at this time
it seems sort of unlikely that our future will turn out like
that, but mainly for social rather than technical reasons.
I do think that if it really became a worldwide social priority
in the near future to take that first step to the stars in 2050,
it could happen.
From VM Wed Oct 7 14:11:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["126" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "15:08:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "4" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 126
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA04379
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04355
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p214.gnt.com [204.49.89.214])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA27292;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:09:29 -0500
Message-ID: <000701bdf22e$2fe81c00$d65931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <000501bdf215$44951d60$d65931cc@lparker>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:08:00 -0500
Correction, AIMSTAR is a second generation drive that is aneutronic - but
the first generation drive is still in R&D ...
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 7 16:52:53 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2604" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:43:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "72" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2604
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA24997
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA24982
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA18933;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdf24c$48240b80$0b5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810071735.SAA08780@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:43:26 -0500
Zenon,
> Good question.
> There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid.
> Mine is "possibly, provided...".
> More precisely, I see two basic problems here:
> 1. Propulsion
> 2. Infrastructure
>
> Ad. 1: Propulsion
> -----------------
> I think it will not be possible, unless some real breakthrough
> occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
> from our perspective, namely:
> - fusion rocket;
First generation under test at JPL
> - giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
> - antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
First generation under test at JPL
> I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
> a prototype build and tested in space.
VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket, it is
close in terms of performance...
> As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
> in the foreseeable future.
>
> Ad. 2: Infrastructure
> ---------------------
> I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without
> extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines
> and space factories.
True, but...
> It must of course start from building
> permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some
cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own
reasons <G>.
> Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow -
> it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above,
> as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs
> in science or technology, only the will and money.
Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech
base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation
to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge.
Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as we
go along, probably a LOT better.
>
> Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
> change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
> the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
> is very, very low.
Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp
Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the
public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive!
Your club is a good start, there are also other avenues that help. ANYTHING
that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along.
Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path.
From VM Wed Oct 7 17:07:59 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["429" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:57:03" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 429
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01790
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01781
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA20312;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:58:47 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdf24e$2e7f2fa0$0b5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <23944-361BD29E-1141@mailtod-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "mangas" <NovaRealm@webtv.net>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:57:03 -0500
Mangas,
Try this for a good starting point:
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
It is the latest revised version of Marc Millis' famous "Warp Drive When?"
presentation. It has been thoroughly rewritten with lots of new links to the
latest research.
Lee
> Hey Lee,
> I'm new on this list and was wondering the URL of your web site, and any
> other of interest dealing with this subject?
> Thanks, Mangas
>
From VM Wed Oct 7 17:07:59 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["170" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "18:56:58" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 170
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01841
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01828
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p251.gnt.com [204.49.91.11])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA20296;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:58:43 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdf24e$2c2476c0$0b5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <13851.45975.952815.959506@tzadkiel.efn.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Steve VanDevender" <stevev@efn.org>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ...
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:56:58 -0500
Steve,
I understood, I still vote yes.
Despite some of the gloomy assessments we have discussed here, I am still
optimistic that it can and will be done by 2050.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2750" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:12:06" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2750
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26508
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26459
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MAZa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:06 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c8a4f06a.361c1f76@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:06 EDT
In a message dated 10/6/98 7:24:42 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>[...]>
>> I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time
>> studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and
>> individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected
>> advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in
>> 2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives,
etc.
>>
>> The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its
>> infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and
production
>> infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable,
>> dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a
>> little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American
>> frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so.
>>
>> The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space
>> exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the
>> development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to
>> a point where we can send out an interstellar probe.
>>
>That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing
>we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate
>and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System.
>As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible
>(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich
>concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private
>enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here.
>The Mars Society awaits us...
These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization as
our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late seabottom bases
to ocean colonization.
>> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets.
>> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even
>> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for
>> one thing - a new chance on a new world.
>>
>Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
>re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way...
Not likely. ;) You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
and abondon them there to die.
Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
Earthly colonization projects.
>
>Regards,
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2695" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "22:12:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "94" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2695
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26724
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26701
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XHAa02301
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:01 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <26295850.361c1f71@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:12:01 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/98 7:44:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Jeez Adam,
>
>
>
>Excuse me while I re-plate the contacts on my modem card...it got kind of
>
>hot <G>.
>
>
>
>Several months ago I began a project which I posted a preview link to on my
>
>website, outlining a timeline for the next 50 to 100 years. I got some
>
>really good suggestions and some replies that it looked more like fiction
>
>than a serious discussion relevant to this list.
>
>
>
>It had a purpose however, and your diatribe hits precisely home. My point
>
>then was (and still is) that we are attempting to define technologies and
>
>design a ship without considering the infrastructure required to make ANY of
>
>this possible. As you and Steve both intimate, there is more to building a
>
>starship than throwing a bunch of hardware together and aiming it at the
>
>nearest star.
>
>
>
>I am still working on this timeline and I have spent a great deal of time
>
>studying what not only NASA, but various private organizations and
>
>individuals have put forward regarding known technologies and expected
>
>advancements. Facts like the expected flight test of a VASIMR engine in
>
>2005, successful laboratory testing of hybrid antimatter/fusion drives, etc.
>
>
>
>The biggest thing we have to deal with though is NOT technology, its
>
>infrastructure. Without the space based mining, manufacturing and production
>
>infrastructure with years of experience in building functional, reliable,
>
>dependable spacecraft - well we aren't going. I think that 2050 is maybe a
>
>little soon for that kind of infrastructure. maybe I'm wrong, the American
>
>frontier was certainly settled sooner, but I don't think so.
>
>
>
>The major road block today is our various government's involvement in space
>
>exploration. Unless we can get the private sector heavily involved in the
>
>development of space, it will be two or three hundred years until we get to
>
>a point where we can send out an interstellar probe.
>
>
>
>In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets.
>
>Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even
>
>thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for
>
>one thing - a new chance on a new world.
>
>
>
>Lee
I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start by launching
fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a compeling reason to
launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off. The one place
we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space
platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system.
What angle are you figuring on here?
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["554" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "21:40:31" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 554
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06810
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA06804
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OEMComputer (pm6-80.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.80])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA06654
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <361C423F.4F5F@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <26295850.361c1f71@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 21:40:31 -0700
<snip>
> The one place
> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space
> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system.
??? Can't settle the planets? I assume you are referring to biotoxins
and such. I disagree, I think it is quite likely that by the time we
begin serious exploration/colonization of other solar systems, we will
have bio-medical systems capable of stopping any problems like bacterial
contamination. If so, and the planet has a decent
atmosphere/temperature/etc., I say colonize it.
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["833" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:35" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 833
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19510
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19499
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KEGa03785
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:35 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5d34cf52.361c31db@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:35 EDT
In a message dated 10/6/98 11:00:09 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>Acttually, a few european colonies have been started for religious
>reasons, such as the Puritans, quakers, and later the mormons in Utah. I
>don't know how plausible interstellar pilgrimage is, but I can see the
>appeal for some group to leave "babylon" behind and set out for the
>promised land. A large group with a strong vision and strong finances
>could do this even prior to more "public" colony projects.
>Best Regards
>Nels Lindberg
Those colonies had a very low survival and success rate (hundreds founded,
dozens survived) and to have pockets deep enough to fund a project like this,
you have to be a powerfull insider.
Also those colonies generally used ships developed by others previously. So
who launches the predisesor flights?
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["595" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:46" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 595
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19681
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19663
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BAFa17800
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:46 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <794e76d2.361c31e6@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:46 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 7:03:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Mangas,
>
>
>
>Try this for a good starting point:
>
>
>
>http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
>
>
>
>It is the latest revised version of Marc Millis' famous "Warp Drive When?"
>
>presentation. It has been thoroughly rewritten with lots of new links to the
>
>latest research.
>
>
>
>Lee
This litle site is full of theoretical ideas that wold revolutionize space
travel. If any of these ideas get out of the lab (and at least one is likely
to by 2050) the whole conversation gets completly turned upside down.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["732" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 732
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19698
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19679
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BLGa17823
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:53 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <376088d2.361c31ed@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:53 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 9:10:33 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:
>> > Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable
>> > planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years.
>>
>> Millions if it's static.
>>
>
>
>yeah and probably only a few centuries if can manage to grow
>exponentially. (Say a doubling of the resourses exploited each decade
>would be nice.)
>
>
>
>Bjorn.
The tens of thousands number assumed the population continues to grow at its
current rate forever, all of them use raw materials at the rate of the most
consuptive American, and none of them recycle anything. Of course more wealth
and tech could dramatically up our usage, but a little recycling seems likely.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["991" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 991
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19700
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19682
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GOUa02329
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:55 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b38f0154.361c31ef@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:55 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 6:49:41 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
>
>> change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
>
>> the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
>
>> is very, very low.
>
>
>
>
>
>Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp
>
>Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the
>
>public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive!
Frankly for bio-technical reason I doub't a habitable planet is possible. If
its to unlie us biochemically its uninhabitable. If its like Earth, it would
be leathal to any organism thats compatible, but not evolved in its eco
sphere.
Kelly
>Your club is a good start, there are also other avenues that help. ANYTHING
>
>that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along.
>
>Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path.
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2358" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2358
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19448
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19442
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2TLDa17798
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:32 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <26299255.361c31d8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/6/98 8:32:16 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
> > >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
> > >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
> > >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
> > >that.
> >
> > Two problems with that.
> >
> > 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where
interstellar
> > missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose)
within
> > the next century or two.
> >
> > 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be
invalid.
>
>I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
>we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
>stage an interstellar exploration mission.
>
>Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
>still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
>starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
>technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
The ships are technically possible, but unaffordable without a major
automation jump. Past 2050 thouwe have no way to figure out what technologies
we'ld be using since new science physics would start to be coming out of the
pipline.
> > In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring
down
> > the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich
> > enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be
a
> > flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home.
> >
> > Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss.
>
>That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are
>plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to
>bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had
>that concept), such as the people who colonized the South
>Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago.
>You seem to be considering only recent European examples of
>colonization.
No those colonization acts worked for the same reason and possibly one other
(the other being they were driven out of there homes). Land to hunter
gatherers and farmers is money in the bank. Not applicaple in an interstallar
colonization question thou sine the other planets would be biologically toxic.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["745" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:31:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 745
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19901
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19892;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 7EVGa10656;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:31:01 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <afa90d50.361c31f5@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu,
starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The QUESTION on the floor ...
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:31:01 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 1:35:29 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>L. Parker writes:
> > Will it be possible or not?
> > >
> > > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> > > everyone else think?
> >
> > I vote YES.
> >
> > Lee
>
>I wasn't really intending to call into question the currently
>stated goal of the design project to build a manned interstellar
>mission by 2050. All I really meant to say was that at this time
>it seems sort of unlikely that our future will turn out like
>that, but mainly for social rather than technical reasons.
>
>I do think that if it really became a worldwide social priority
>in the near future to take that first step to the stars in 2050,
>it could happen.
I agree.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["8599" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:51" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "284" "Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 8599
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19722
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19712
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WBGa03786
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:51 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a4b70dee.361c31eb@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: doable drives
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:51 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 7:29:04 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/5/98 10:20:23 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The most believable scenario achieveable by
>> 2050
>> >that I've seen is the analysis by Dana Andrews on the economics of laser
and
>> >particle-beam propelled probe systems, but that's assuming a lot of Belt-
>> based
>> >infrastructure. If Inertial Confinement fusion can be properly developed
then
>> pulse
>> >propulsion might become viable, but that still has major problems with
>> neutron
>> >damage since any forseeable system will involve deuterium, and so
deuterium
>> >reactions that produce neutrons. Which is why I prefer beamed power
>> scenarios,
>>
>> Ah you don't have to use fusion fuels that produce neutrons in a pulse
fusino
>> system.
>
>Such as? What fuels can we use? Lithium? Does anyone know how to start a
lithium
>reaction?
Add the right isotope of Lith a bit of hydrogen, and a LOT of power. ;)
>>
>> >but
>> >they need lots and lots of power - kilo-terawatts [petawatts?] - and
that's
>a
>> bit
>> >hard to provide. Huge focussing solettas, giant gas-core reactors and/or
>> fusion
>> >systems would be required. Is any of that achieveable by 2050?
>>
>> You could build fleets of space solar power platforms, but unless you have
>> masive space based automated mining and manufacturing systems, you couldn't
>> afford them. But then perhaps perfecting such systems could drive a
government
>> to fund such a program as a show piece.
>
>Perhaps we assume too little by not factoring in nano-assemblers and von
neumann
>replicators. PersonallyI can see such being available by 2050, so maybe huge
>solettas won't be unreasonable.
There so high leverage they would alter the fabric of society and technology.
Past that we can't really guess what the tech would be like, or if manned
flighed would be replaced by robot AI birds. (Thou those would be very hard
to get funding for.)
However some type of major jump in AI or automatino tech seem virtually
assured by 2050.
>I suspect any really high energy system will be
>some sort of thermal generator system rather than photovoltaic. Higher
efficiency,
>at least in principle.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I don't see star-flight by humans really happening until the Solar System
is
>> filled
>> >with mobile cylinder cities and large scale mining of fusion fuels is
>> underway.
>> >That could happen by 2100, or 2150. By that stage more people will live
off-
>> Earth
>> >than on and large-scale closed-cycle habitation in space will be common-
>> place.
>> >Alongside such developments I would also see longevity and cyber-
>> augmentation,
>> >plus
>> >various gene engineering techniques being well developed. We might not be
>> able
>> >to
>> >go the stars, but They might make themselves able to trek across the void.
>>
>> These are a lot of assumptions.
>
>True.
>
>> The one thing we did all agree was that we
>> couldn't seriously predict what the science or economics past 2050 would
>> credibly be.
>
>I doubt it'll be totally alien, though my scenario of Sol Space filled with
>independent CylCits is pretty radically divergent to most [outside of
>space-interest groups.]
Advabxed nano replicators or trans human inteligence AI's could shake stuff up
pretty radically. Or a few breakthroughs in physics (zero-point energy,
inertial damping, kenetic energy systhasis, etc) could make our stuff look
pretty dated. Then of course if someone does figure our a Albuquen(sp) warp
drive system... ;)
>> >
>> >I know we're discussing realiseable systems, but really how feasible are
>> fusion
>> >drives and multi-staging to get to 0.3 c by 2050? We haven't got fusion
>> pulse,
>> >we
>> >haven't got a closed space-going ecology, we haven't got high-strength,
high-
>> Tc
>> >superconductors and God-knows what else we might need. So who's to say
what
>> is
>> >possible?
>>
>> We do have pulse fusion systems that could reasonably be developed in the
next
>> 50 years into functioning drives.
>
>We do? Have you seen DoD research that the rest of us haven't?
Comercial research in pulsed fusion reactors got pretty far in the 80's, and
several promising alternate fusion concepts are gathering dust. I said they
"could reasonably be developed", not that they were working.
>> Life support and food storage that would
>> last a 30-40 years for a round trip is fairly doable. And thats about all
we
>> need to build a 40ish% of c system.
>
>0.4c! Are you kidding? What sort of mass-ratio do you need for that using
fusion?
>1000/1?
Its listed in the Explorer pages or Fuel/Sail. As I remember it was about 100
to 1, with boost to speed from external power.
>> Given a BIG checkbook a combined beamed
>> power and fusinon system COULD be built in mid 21st century. However
unless
>> some manufacturing advance brings that cost WAY down, no one WOULD pay for
it.
>
>Perhaps we should invoke ultra-cheap nano-systems so starflight is possible
by
>2050.
>
>>
>>
>> >If go conservative we could build an Orion system that'd reach Alpha
>> >Centauri in 400 - 120 years - that'd break the Global Economy to make.
What
>> would
>> >it take to launch +300,000 tons of fusion bombs and equipment? A thousand
>> HLLV
>> >flights? At a billion a shot? Then there's actually making all those
bombs,
>> and
>> >the
>> >risks of terrorism and so forth.
>>
>> Actually it would be harder to do multi century flight, and really stupid
to
>> do it. Obviously in a century or two science and technology will make
>> incredible strides, so unless you can get there in a couple of decades, you
>> should just wait for a faster ship.
>
>Which is why I posited Orion. It is unreasonable for manned starflight, but
my
>point was it's what we can do NOW.
But it is too slow to be worth doing.
>> >
>> >So what do we discuss? The physically possible, but what about the humanly
>> >possible? What sort of people will cruise the stars? Not the middle-class
>> liberals
>> >that flash around at warp-speed on "Star Trek" and carrying on like it's
some
>> >god-damn soap-opera! It'll be people who want the stars for a whole
variety
>> of
>> >reasons, but they'll be living and working together. Flying island states
are
>> more
>> >likely than career-enhancing star-cruisers. Starflight won't be a part of
a
>> life,
>> >it'll be a life.
>>
>> Unlikely, even more unlikely then Star Trek types. Flying cities need to
pay
>> their way. You can't just take off with them. Thats like buying and
removing
>> Manhatten.
>
>It won't be if they're independent.
Now a days we can't even make countries completly independant, citys need
major interaction.
>>
>> Since the resources of this star system could support any conceivable
>> planetary civilization for tens of thousands of years.
>
>Millions if it's static.
Static systems would die quicker, but if you assume a little recycling or tech
advancement it goes well beyond that.
>> There'd be no need
>> to pull up stakes and move on for greener fields. So why build and launch
a
>> interstellar colony?
>
>Why? Why not?
Loss of money, isolation, reduced access to new technology, Danger,
generatinos of hardshio[ compared to styay at homes with no obvious up side
ever.
>> >
>> >So I assume fleets of colonisers because that's what it will take. Not
small
>> scale
>> >Explorers. They're only feasible if a mission is just a couple of years,
not
>> >several decades. To do that you'll need ships doing +0.999995 c, and
that's
>> really
>> >silly.
>>
>> Can'y say a ship that fast (or faster) would be silly. We can't build it,
but
>> someday we'll be able too.
>
>Assumes more than we can know. I believe we'll be able to, but that's no
guarantee
>it'll ever happen. The really silly aspect is the accelerations required. At
a
>gee
>it takes years to get around, even when we're counting tau time and not flat
time.
>Anything quicker requires higher accelerations. Unless you cancel inertia or
want
>to float in a tank like a newt, then it's impossible to fit a starflight into
just
>a couple of years. Small groups wouldn't survive over the years realistically
>needed to get between stars, so I think the minimum would be ~ 500. A Greek
city
>state size of 10,000 - 30,000 would be better, and more likely to spend a few
>years processing Jovian gases or comet ices to get the fuel.
>
>But I'm just guessing. Anyone got a way of boosting a ship to 0.999995 c in a
>hurry?
1 G would get you to light speed in about a year ship-time.
>Adam
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3012" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3012
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20618
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20568
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 9MWEa18748;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:41 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a6a0feda.361c31e1@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: david@playlink.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:41 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 9:58:22 AM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: Steve VanDevender[SMTP:stevev@efn.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and
>> something to push against.
>>
>> I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
>> we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
>> stage an interstellar exploration mission.
>>
>> Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
>> still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
>> starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
>> technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
>>
>Well, I think we can all agree that it is economically unlikely for an
>interstellar mission to be launched within the next fifty years. I
>suppose one might ask the question whether or not that matters? I think
>the original idea was to discuss the mission from a more technical
>standpoint, although I certainly wouldn't want to exclude other
>discussions. Would it be worthwhile to instead discuss the question:
>"How would we get to a nearby star given that there is a directive to go
>(the reason being irrelevant) and that there are unlimited funds (well,
>limited by the planet's resources), launching in 2050?" Or would
>everyone feel uncomfortable with a discussion on that level?
>
>Now, by "unlimited funds" I don't mean building a starship the size of
>our moon - there's still a question of what we can physically accomplish
>by the time the launch deadline comes around. If we took the next fifty
>years to build something (coming up with something enormous) we'd be
>limited by a design of today (i.e. fission, sail, etc). If we want to
>use a design from 2040 (i.e. fusion, maybe antimatter), we'd have to be
>able to build it in ten years.
>
>Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
>an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
>"interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
>on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
>mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
>within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
>capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
>don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
>next). Will it be possible or not?
>
>My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
>everyone else think?
Technically possible almost certainly yes, but at a stagering cost. But then
who in 1919 would have thought we could afford Saturn-V rockets by 1969.
Kelly
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine david@playlink.com
>Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
>PlayLink (212) 387-8200
>Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3142" "Wed" "7" "October" "1998" "23:30:59" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "77" "Re: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3142
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21623
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21618
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 4BLUa02316;
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:59 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <97e9dbd4.361c31f3@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: I nterstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:30:59 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>> [...]
>>
>> Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
>> an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
>> "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
>> on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
>> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
>> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
>> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives).
>> I don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
>> next). Will it be possible or not?
>>
>> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
>> everyone else think?
>>
>Good question.
>There is no yes/no answer, I am afraid.
>Mine is "possibly, provided...".
>More precisely, I see two basic problems here:
>1. Propulsion
>2. Infrastructure
>
>Ad. 1: Propulsion
>-----------------
>I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough
>occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
>from our perspective, namely:
>- fusion rocket;
>- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
>- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
>I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
>a prototype build and tested in space.
>As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
>in the foreseable future.
breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology. I
would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather. The fusion
and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none. Thou given
the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat now, its
obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost interest in
the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors. So if fusion is
developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
>Ad. 2: Infrastructure
>---------------------
>I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without
>extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines
>and space factories. It must of course start from building
>permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
>Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow -
>it is even more annoyning than the slow progres in point (1) above,
>as the progress in this area already needs no essential breaktroughs
>in science or technology, only the will and money.
Here we agree. Unless your pretty heavily along in doing things in this solar
system, your not likely to be worrying about interstellar.
>Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
>change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
>the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
>is very, very low.
We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never
did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then
Apollo didn't make any sence eiather.
>-- Zenon Kulpa
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1457" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "00:05:05" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1457
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19235
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA19229
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202)
id AAA02358; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 00:12:20 -0500
Received: from wf-5-9.wavefront.com(204.73.244.187), claiming to be "urly-bird.com"
via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa02344; Thu Oct 8 05:12:09 1998
Message-ID: <361C4801.7648C2B9@urly-bird.com>
Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
From: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: SSD <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 00:05:05 -0500
perhaps we could just mandate a drive with given parameters, and
content ourselves with design of the ship and living quarters,
life support etc.
perhaps we could do that for several different drive types (FTL
vs multi-generational vs near relativistic.
that way, if any of the breakthruoghs happen, we will have the
start of a design.
David Levine wrote:
> Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
> an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
> "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
> on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> next). Will it be possible or not?
>
> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> everyone else think?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David Levine david@playlink.com
> Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
> PlayLink (212) 387-8200
> Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
--
Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/
Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1026" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "07:36:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1026
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA20995
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA20988
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA10427;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:48 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdf2b8$54cbf980$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <26295850.361c1f71@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:51 -0500
Kelly,
>
> I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start
> by launching
> fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a
> compeling reason to
> launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off.
> The one place
> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space
> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system.
>
> What angle are you figuring on here?
>
At some point in time, whether it is fifty years from now or a hundred and
fifty, crossing the gulf between the stars will have become simple. I am not
making any predictions as to how, just that it will. At that point in time a
whole new set of driving factors comes in to play, factors that don't even
exist right now in some cases. When a slightly modified freighter or mining
ship can make the crossing, everybody and their brother WILL be going. I did
not mean it so much as a single agency or organization would be launching
fleets of ships, just that "fleets" of ships would be leaving.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["296" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "07:37:05" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 296
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA21012
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA21000
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA10436;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:36:54 -0500
Message-ID: <000101bdf2b8$5b715460$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <5d34cf52.361c31db@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:37:05 -0500
Kelly,
A lot of the North American colonies were first scouted out by fishermen.
Most of the colonies from Virginia northward started out as fishing camps
that were occupied seasonally for many years before the first "colonists"
came to stay, and they came on freighters and fishing boats.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2058" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:45:37" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "48" "starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2058
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22491
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA22476
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 05:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne7p18.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.210]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04889 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:47:34 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <361CB3EF.FFD42184@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2BA@mail.actionworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:45:37 +1000
Hi Group,
David Levine wrote:
> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> next). Will it be possible or not?
>
> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> everyone else think?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David Levine david@playlink.com
> Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
> PlayLink (212) 387-8200
> Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching
Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital
Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to
pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the
current state of space who can blame me?
I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rust
arounding the US.
I could be wrong, if someone develops an inertialess drive. And vacuum
energy tapping.
But since this is an engineering exercise I'm willing to go along with it.
Just how far ahead can we imagine?
Tech-wise I mean.
Another point is how willing we are to invoke antimatter, but just how much
energy can it realistically produce in a rocket jet? I've heard estimates of
only 1 - 2 %. That'd be fine [better than fusion], but we'd need to make the
stuff in massive quantities. Ultra-high energy density lasers are becoming
possible, so some sort of direct conversion system might yet happen in the
near term. Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
Pardon my ignore but what's VASIMR?
Adam
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2640" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "10:49:06" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "57" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2640
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA20363
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA20347
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3HC7>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:49:07 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2C4@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:49:06 -0400
> ----------
> From: AJ Crowl[SMTP:ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 8:45 AM
> Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be
> launching
> Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some
> Orbital
> Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be
> starting to
> pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but
> given the
> current state of space who can blame me?
>
>
Actually, I'm gathering optimism about the state of the space industry -
not because of NASA, but because of private companies. The X Prize is
just one of things that is giving me confidence for the future of space
travel.
Sometimes people give timelines of where they think space travel will be
over the next fifty years, and it normally involves the government and
NASA (i.e. by this year we will return to the moon, by that year we will
be at Mars, etc.). Instead, I'd like to offer a timeline for commercial
space endeavors:
2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism.
2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism.
2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research into
materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing.
2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon,
experimental private industry research into asteroid mining.
2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first
asteroid mining.
Private companies will lead the way to a permanent presence in space, as
long as there is money there. And we all know there is. However,
asteroid mining and the like will be easier if there is an existing
launch infrastructure, and I think this will be facilitated by space
tourism. Yes, this tourism will mainly be for the rich in the
beginning, but it doesn't matter if it helps jump start everything and
eventually we all get to go.
I may never get to another star, and I may never go to Mars or even the
moon... but I'm pretty confident that before my life is over I will have
gotten the chance to see the Earth from space.
Call your senator today and tell them to vote YES on H. Res. 572. This
bill (recently passed by the House) allows private U.S. companies to
send reusable launch vehicles into space. The D.O.T. will license such
companies.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Thu Oct 8 09:50:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4955" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "17:21:43" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "131" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4955
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26860
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26783
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA09937; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:21:43 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810081621.RAA09937@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:21:43 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Ad. 1: Propulsion
> > -----------------
> > I think it will not be possible, unless some real breakthrough
> > occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
> > from our perspective, namely:
> > - fusion rocket;
>
> First generation under test at JPL
>
As far as I know, still only on paper.
Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
actual fusion reaction?
> > - giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
> > - antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
>
> First generation under test at JPL
>
Ditto.
And what about the antimatter factory?
Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter
in several million years, counting optimistically...
And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter
for years on?
> > I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
> > a prototype build and tested in space.
>
> VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket,
> it is close in terms of performance...
>
We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning
the performance.
> > Ad. 2: Infrastructure
> > ---------------------
> > I do not think it at all possible to build a starship without
> > extensive infrastructure in space, including asteroid mines
> > and space factories.
>
> True, but...
>
> > It must of course start from building
> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
>
> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some
> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own
> reasons <G>.
>
First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
automated without human supervision, and will not without
real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances
(remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon
(ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...).
Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
habitat in space", and rather large for that.
How to build one without any prior experience?
Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
that going to another star?
> > Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow -
> > it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above,
> > as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs
> > in science or technology, only the will and money.
>
> Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech
> base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation
> to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge.
> Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as
> we go along, probably a LOT better.
>
True, but we should START going in the first place.
Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
we made two steps back.
With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
and not always ahead.
Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
will build the necessary space infrastructure.
So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
(for Sagan).
> > Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
> > change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
> > the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
> > is very, very low.
>
> Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp
> Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the
> public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive!
>
I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
be either inhabitable, or deadly.
Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
than help.
> Your club is a good start,
>
Thank you.
Americans have such clubs aplenty and are certainly the foremost
spacefaring nation in today's world. Most other nations are
in deep freeze here (except, possibly, Japanese),
but including most Europeans, despite ESA.
Our humble attempt is to rouse some interest in space exploration,
mostly among Poles. We are also involved in organizing
the Polish Chapter of Mars Society.
We will see if it produces any effects on this side
of the Big Puddle.
> there are also other avenues that help.
> ANYTHING that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped along.
> Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path.
>
Here I fully agree.
-- Zenon Kulpa
* * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * *
http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html uranos@uranos.eu.org
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct [Carl Sagan]
From VM Thu Oct 8 12:34:01 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2046" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "12:27:28" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2046
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA13330
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA13230
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante27.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante27.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.101])
by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA56526 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:30 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante27.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA49466 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <361C4801.7648C2B9@urly-bird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810081221300.46188-100000@dante27.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Kevin,
I agree with you on this point. Many of the missions call for
accelerations of 10 m/ss. Assuming the ship has a small (say 1 to 5)
numberof engines, designing engine mounts and superstructure that can take
the strain of accelerating tons of spacecraft is quite a challenge. Of
course, keeping things light is a challenge as well. Prehaps we should
think about a ship around a "black box" engine with a constant thrust of
so many newtons, so much mass, etc. Nels
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Kevin Houston wrote:
> perhaps we could just mandate a drive with given parameters, and
> content ourselves with design of the ship and living quarters,
> life support etc.
>
> perhaps we could do that for several different drive types (FTL
> vs multi-generational vs near relativistic.
>
> that way, if any of the breakthruoghs happen, we will have the
> start of a design.
>
>
> David Levine wrote:
>
> > Or, do we think that there is simply technically no way we could launch
> > an interstellar mission within fifty years? I suppose we have to define
> > "interstellar mission" - after all, the Voyager spacecraft are already
> > on such a mission. So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> > mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> > within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> > capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
> > don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> > next). Will it be possible or not?
> >
> > My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
> > everyone else think?
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > David Levine david@playlink.com
> > Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
> > PlayLink (212) 387-8200
> > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
>
> --
> Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/
> Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5
>
From VM Thu Oct 8 16:05:33 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3110" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "17:53:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "74" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3110
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14360
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14308
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA11930;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:54:15 -0500
Message-ID: <000701bdf30e$882bb760$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810081621.RAA09937@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:53:56 -0500
Zenon,
> As far as I know, still only on paper.
> Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
> actual fusion reaction?
No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions and verified
the energy output. In other words, the technology has been proven - the
actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper.
> Ditto.
> And what about the antimatter factory?
> Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter
> in several million years, counting optimistically...
> And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter
> for years on?
The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and
AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be
able to produce within the next twenty years. Storage technology is hard
science, already built, and tested (they drove around the U.S. with the
storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I
guess it worked.)
> > VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket,
> > it is close in terms of performance...
> >
> We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning
> the performance.
VASIMR's performance isn't in question, the engine is fired on a regular
schedule and its performance is a known quantity. It hasn't been FLOWN yet
however.
> First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
> automated without human supervision, and will not without
> real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
> Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances
> (remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon
> (ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...).
> Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
> habitat in space", and rather large for that.
> How to build one without any prior experience?
> Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
> that going to another star?
For the first part, these are relatively minor problems involving no new
technology, just development and refinement of known ones. Yes, this will
take time, but I would hardly characterize this as a major road block.
For the second part I would just reiterate the argument I already gave, the
only way to get the experience we need is to start doing it. It is a self
reinforcing process, the more we work and live in space, the better we get
at it. Again, hardly a major obstacle.
>
> I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
> around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
> be either inhabitable, or deadly.
The only way to find out is to go. Besides, I am not a fan of settling other
planets, I think we should start buy settling the system, planets are for
sheep...and sheep herders.
> Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
> unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
> Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
> than help.
Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc
Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 8 16:27:36 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1200" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "18:12:28" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1200
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27157
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27033
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p232.gnt.com [204.49.89.232])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA15158
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:12:40 -0500
Message-ID: <000a01bdf311$1e7f6160$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:12:28 -0500
Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be
is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening
between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number <G> lets
do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define
performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of
ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of
performance based on the following divisions:
LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in
delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c)
MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire
mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec,
total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c)
HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum
acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c)
All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel,
change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to
decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be
doubled).
Comments or suggestions?
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1504" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "21:08:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1504
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19685
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA19635
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2FJDa02343
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:08:16 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <9097763e.361d6200@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:08:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/7/98 9:49:06 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:
><snip>
>> The one place
>> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space
>> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system.
>
>??? Can't settle the planets? I assume you are referring to biotoxins
>and such.
Yes.
>I disagree, I think it is quite likely that by the time we
>begin serious exploration/colonization of other solar systems, we will
>have bio-medical systems capable of stopping any problems like bacterial
>contamination. If so, and the planet has a decent
>atmosphere/temperature/etc., I say colonize it.
Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from
microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and
disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on our
boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our
favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window.
Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why god
cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was the
euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before
evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied
vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was
among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino source.
We're talking about total historic isolation.
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Kelly
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2226" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "19:27:47" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2226
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15498
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason04.u.washington.edu (root@jason04.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15448
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante08.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante08.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.10])
by jason04.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id TAA24448 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:48 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante08.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id TAA87638 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <000a01bdf311$1e7f6160$c05931cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810081736120.100174-100000@dante15.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Lee,
here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories.
An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's
electronics would have to be special built to take the strain).
Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few
seconds.
As for the middle range, having done some aerobatics myself, I can
truthfully relate that taking three gees is somewhat uncomfortable, and
doctors know that it isn't good for you in the long run.
NASA has probably done gee tolerance studies that give better
numbers, but I personally would be loath to spend the next several years
at more than 1.5 gees.
Best Regards
Nels
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be
> is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening
> between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number <G> lets
> do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define
> performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of
> ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of
> performance based on the following divisions:
>
> LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in
> delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c)
>
> MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire
> mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec,
> total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c)
>
> HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum
> acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c)
>
> All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel,
> change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to
> decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be
> doubled).
>
> Comments or suggestions?
>
> Lee
>
>
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["922" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "21:50:49" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 922
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23395
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA23386
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-31.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.31])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA03733
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:53:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810081736120.100174-100000@dante15.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:50:49 -0700
N. Lindberg wrote:
>
> Lee,
> here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories.
> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
> continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's
> electronics would have to be special built to take the strain).
> Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few
> seconds.
I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments
(the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a
starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then
again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any
thoughts on this one?
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["543" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:30:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 543
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02574
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02554
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00535;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:37 -0500
Message-ID: <001201bdf335$21dba160$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:16 -0500
Kyle,
The idea is being studied, but it faces two hurdles:
1) People are much more massive than frogs, we can't generate that strong of
a field, and
2) We don't know what the long term effects of exposure to these fields are.
> I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments
> (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a
> starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then
> again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any
> thoughts on this one?
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2035" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:30:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "starship-design: Revised Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2035
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02558
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02544
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00527;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:35 -0500
Message-ID: <001101bdf335$1f3c3e60$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810081736120.100174-100000@dante15.u.washington.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Revised Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:30:11 -0500
Nels,
Those were peak accelerations, not sustained. The high end version would
only sustain 1 g for any length of time (preferably continuously). Obviously
no engine design would be run at maximum power continuously, So I was using
a ratio of about 1 to 10 to be cautious.
The low end would peak at 1 g and therefore would "cruise" at 1/10 g, the
middle range would peak at 3 g's and cruise at 1/3 g, and the high end would
peak at 9 g's and cruise at 1 g. There was no special reason for picking
these exact figures, I just wanted a safety margin and they sounded good.
> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
> continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's
> electronics would have to be special built to take the strain).
> Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few
> seconds.
> As for the middle range, having done some aerobatics myself, I can
> truthfully relate that taking three gees is somewhat uncomfortable, and
> doctors know that it isn't good for you in the long run.
> NASA has probably done gee tolerance studies that give better
> numbers, but I personally would be loath to spend the next several years
> at more than 1.5 gees.
Okay, here they are reworded:
LOW: Thrust is not continuous, normal acceleration is 1 m/sec, may never
exceed 10 m/sec, total change in delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c)
MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire
mission duration, normal acceleration is 3 m/sec, may achieve transient
thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec, total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec
(2/3 c)
HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, normal
acceleration is 10 m/sec, maximum acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is
300,000 km/sec (0.99 c)
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["920" "Thu" "8" "October" "1998" "22:38:20" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 920
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05372
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA05364
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p220.gnt.com [204.49.89.220])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA01997;
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:38:42 -0500
Message-ID: <001301bdf336$428a8600$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810081736120.100174-100000@dante15.u.washington.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:38:20 -0500
Nels,
> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
> continue with the idea of manned missions....
MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or
vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs,
most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9
g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum
design load.
As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec
(1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand
version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume
that is why you wrote the m/ss?
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["865" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "01:15:22" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 865
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA13063
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA13058
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202)
id BAA16333; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 01:22:41 -0500
Received: from wf-5-5.wavefront.com(204.73.244.183), claiming to be "urly-bird.com"
via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa16328; Fri Oct 9 06:22:31 1998
Message-ID: <361DA9FA.FEB88D69@urly-bird.com>
Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <001201bdf335$21dba160$c05931cc@lparker>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
From: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 01:15:22 -0500
But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon
it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of
contact with a solid object.
L. Parker wrote:
>
> Kyle,
>
> The idea is being studied, but it faces two hurdles:
>
> 1) People are much more massive than frogs, we can't generate that strong of
> a field, and
> 2) We don't know what the long term effects of exposure to these fields are.
>
> > I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments
> > (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a
> > starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then
> > again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any
> > thoughts on this one?
>
> Lee
--
Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/
Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3499" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "14:55:43" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3499
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09263
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA09252
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA10954; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:55:43 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810091355.OAA10954@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:55:43 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
[...]
> >Ad. 1: Propulsion
> >-----------------
> >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough
> >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
> >from our perspective, namely:
> >- fusion rocket;
> >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
> >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
> >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
> >a prototype build and tested in space.
> >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
> >in the foreseable future.
>
> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology.
> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather.
> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require none.>
I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
still wait for breaktroughs.
Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers -
that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means
tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it
highly impractical, if at all possible to build
and keep in operation for tens of years.
Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
of efficiency, but not only).
The question of scale is important - for interstellar
propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders
of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now,
which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work.
Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion...
> Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat ,
> now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost
> interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors.
> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
>
Not necessarily. They may find different application niches.
> >Ad. 2: Infrastructure
> >---------------------
[...]
>
> >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
> >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
> >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
> >is very, very low.
>
> We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we never
> did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then
> Apollo didn't make any sence eiather.
>
No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly):
to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik).
And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political).
Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts,
most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo
was promptly wasted.
As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth
within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar
may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human
colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its
independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen,
or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology
power step.
Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years.
-- Zenon Kulpa
From VM Fri Oct 9 09:32:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1965" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "15:58:44" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "50" "Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1965
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25051
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25035
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA11003; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:44 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810091458.PAA11003@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:44 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
[...]
> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing
> >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate
> >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System.
> >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible
> >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich
> >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private
> >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here.
> >The Mars Society awaits us...
>
> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization
> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>
Possibly, but you must start from something.
Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
> >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in fleets.
> >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and even
> >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking for
> >> one thing - a new chance on a new world.
> >>
> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-way...
>
> Not likely. ;)
>
Not likely what?
> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
> and abondon them there to die.
>
That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
to understand that!
Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
> Earthly colonization projects.
>
Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
interplanetary-space society.
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 9 10:03:23 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5822" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:51:31" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "146" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5822
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA19300
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA19242
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA11091; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:51:31 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810091651.RAA11091@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:51:31 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > As far as I know, still only on paper.
> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
> > actual fusion reaction?
>
> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
> and verified the energy output.
>
Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
> In other words, the technology has been proven - the
> actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper.
>
> > Ditto.
> > And what about the antimatter factory?
> > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter
> > in several million years, counting optimistically...
> > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter
> > for years on?
>
> The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and
> AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be
> able to produce within the next twenty years.
>
But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight,
not a single ICAN spacecraft.
> Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested
>
The current containers can store only picograms or even less
of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter),
and can store the antiprotons only for few days
(they slowly annihilate inside...).
Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
and technology.
> (they drove around the U.S. with the
> storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I
> guess it worked.)
>
That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time
it will be possible...
Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
> > > VASIMR is scheduled to FLY in 2005. While not exactly a fusion rocket,
> > > it is close in terms of performance...
> > >
> > We will see... I am rather skeptical, especially concerning
> > the performance.
>
> VASIMR's performance isn't in question, the engine is fired on a regular
> schedule and its performance is a known quantity. It hasn't been FLOWN yet
> however.
>
You say it has performance good enough to put it into
a starship?
> > First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
> > automated without human supervision, and will not without
> > real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
> > Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances
> > (remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon
> > (ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...).
> > Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
> > habitat in space", and rather large for that.
> > How to build one without any prior experience?
> > Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
> > that going to another star?
>
> For the first part, these are relatively minor problems involving no new
> technology, just development and refinement of known ones. Yes, this will
> take time, but I would hardly characterize this as a major road block.
>
Possibly, but I would not bet too much for that...
> For the second part I would just reiterate the argument I already gave, the
> only way to get the experience we need is to start doing it. It is a self
> reinforcing process, the more we work and live in space, the better we get
> at it.
>
Seems to be a misunderstanding here.
I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly
that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote
that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship
is "not necessarily" needed...
> > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
> > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
> > be either inhabitable, or deadly.
>
> The only way to find out is to go.
>
Exactly. Almost.
I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth.
I am in no way against going to find out.
> Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets,
> I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for
> sheep...and sheep herders.
>
Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
> > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
> > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
> > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
> > than help.
>
> Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc
> Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I.
>
I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs).
However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding
a "habitable" planet around another star.
At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet
will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there
within the life of this generation.
It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside
Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most)
of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly
habitable planet around another star may stir some public
interest, not earlier.
I see that I must add a proper disclaimer:
------------------------------------------
I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think.
My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved
and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that
all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately)
may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence
where a call to arms seems more appropriate.
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 9 10:19:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1502" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "10:12:14" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1502
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29484
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29413
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante25.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante25.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.99])
by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id KAA17668 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:17 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante25.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id KAA65952 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:16 -0700
In-Reply-To: <361D9629.6702@sunherald.infi.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810091007090.31316-100000@dante25.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Kyle,
I read an article on this in Physics Today recently. For _one_
human, you would need a magnet as large as your living room, and the
person couldn't move around much. A religious leader wanted one to
levitate him in front of his audience, bad luck. As for the health
effects of magnetic fields, volunteers have spent time in fields up to 7
(I think) gauss with no measureable ill effects. Also, being levitated
doesn't seem to bother the frogs much.
Best Regards,
Nels Lindberg
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> N. Lindberg wrote:
> >
> > Lee,
> > here are some comments on your low/medium/high categories.
> > An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
> > impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
> > gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
> > take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
> > continue with the idea of manned missions, even an unmanned vessel's
> > electronics would have to be special built to take the strain).
> > Military pilots wearing g-suits are limited to 9.5 gees for a few
> > seconds.
>
> I've been thinking about this, and the diamagnetic leviation experiments
> (the floating frog). I wonder, might it be possible to apply this to a
> starship to lessen the acceleration stresses on a human body? Then
> again, the high magnetic fields would probably be dangerous...any
> thoughts on this one?
>
> Kyle R. Mcallister
>
From VM Fri Oct 9 15:36:24 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4377" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:09:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "99" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4377
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22990
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA22887
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p284.gnt.com [204.49.91.44])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA21396;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:11:21 -0500
Message-ID: <002601bdf3d1$8d31af80$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810091651.RAA11091@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:09:56 -0500
Zenon,
> > No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
> > and verified the energy output.
> >
> Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
> balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps you should
check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the data is there.
> But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight,
> not a single ICAN spacecraft.
True, but we have to start somewhere. You will note however that the AIMSTAR
paper uses some of the results of the ICAN testing at JPL and includes a
rather startling observation. ICAN assumed that the antimatter would be
consumed each time by the reaction, actually, it was not. It took three or
four cycles before it had to be replenished. It is only a catalyst remember.
> The current containers can store only picograms or even less
> of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter),
> and can store the antiprotons only for few days
> (they slowly annihilate inside...).
>
> Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
> without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
> and technology.
Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read. ICAN and AIMSTAR
don't need tons. An interstellar drive based on an outgrowth of AIMSTAR
would only need a few grams, I don't see a problem.
> > (they drove around the U.S. with the
> > storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're
> still here so I
> > guess it worked.)
> >
> That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time
> it will be possible...
> Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
> on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
Well, it isn't really all that dangerous, even if the Penning Trap had
failed, it would only have gotten a little hot, its not like it would have
exploded or anything. Since it isn't an explosive, poison or hazardous
waste, no permits are required.
> You say it has performance good enough to put it into
> a starship?
VASIMR? Heck no. Its strictly interplanetary. Unlike the ACMF proposals it
will never scale to interstellar. However, it uses several technologies
which are crucial to enhancing the performance of later generation of ACMF
or even true antimatter drives. The fact that it is ready for flight testing
was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted an example of a
real working space drive, I provided one.
> Seems to be a misunderstanding here.
> I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly
> that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote
> that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship
> is "not necessarily" needed...
Nope, I said it wasn't necessary to build a manned habitat to mine
asteroids. Then promptly intimated that WE would prefer that they were
manned because we need the experience working in space precisely because it
was necessary in order to build a starship.
> Exactly. Almost.
> I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth.
> I am in no way against going to find out.
Oh I think given a few more years we will be able to tell from here whether
it has an Earthlike atmosphere or not - which doesn't necessarily mean that
it is "habitable". Which is why I said the only way to find out is to go.
> Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
> (in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
> for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
> artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
Well, I think most people, including the general public would agree with you
there. I am just saying that it makes more sense to settle the system's
asteroids, moons and other ore rich bodies first, but that is a whole
different argument.
> I see that I must add a proper disclaimer:
> ------------------------------------------
> I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think.
> My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved
> and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that
> all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately)
> may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence
> where a call to arms seems more appropriate.
I agree.
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 15:44:25 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["606" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "16:40:49" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 606
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04911
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04877
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p206.gnt.com [204.49.89.206])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA15774;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:42:02 -0500
Message-ID: <002001bdf3cd$7c15f160$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <361DA9FA.FEB88D69@urly-bird.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Kevin Houston" <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:40:49 -0500
>
> But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon
> it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of
> contact with a solid object.
>
Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is
equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact
weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the
plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying.
The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet
ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is.
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 9 15:44:25 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["940" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "16:40:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 940
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04856
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04835
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p206.gnt.com [204.49.89.206])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA15794;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:42:07 -0500
Message-ID: <002101bdf3cd$7e1e4480$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <361DAC4D.5793EFF0@urly-bird.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Kevin Houston" <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:40:54 -0500
Kevin,
>
> These are good numbers, but I agree with Nels, that the max. thrust
> numbers seem a little bit high. Especially on the HIGH: thrust engine.
> But if we cut that down, or state that it is only a short-term maximum,
> then I think Lee's numbers are good.
>
>
> How about
>
> LOW: Continuous thrust at .1 g
> Transient thrust at 1 g for 10 hours max.
>
> MED: Continuous thrust at .33 g
> Transient thrust at 3 g for 3 hours max.
>
> HIGH: Continuous thrust at 1 g
> Transient thrust at 6 g for 1 hour max.
>
> All delta v numbers should be for a ship of a given mass, say 1000 tons
> total weight.
>
I agree with the proposed modifications, I did attempt to state that all of
the *big* numbers were peak or transient values. I didn't think about a
definite time limit though, which is probably a good idea. I will repost a
new version later this evening after I've incorporated any other
suggestions.
Lee
From VM Sat Oct 10 12:02:48 1998
Content-Length: 12776
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["12776" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "17:58:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "273" "starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 12776
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25644
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA25577
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p219.gnt.com [204.49.89.219])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA29641
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:59:43 -0500
Message-ID: <002c01bdf3d8$51a07e40$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:58:23 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00"
------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Okay, here is a new and improved engine specification. Everyone please
review it for any further suggestions.
Revised Engine Performance Specifications
LOW
a.. Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.1 g
b.. Continuous acceleration duration is limited to 1/3 length of mission
c.. Transient (peak) acceleration at 1 g for a maximum of ten hours
d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 100,000 km/sec
e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 100 tons
MEDIAN
a.. Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.33 g
b.. Continuous acceleration duration is limited to 2/3 length of mission
c.. Transient (peak) acceleration at 3 g's for a maximum of three hours
d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 200,000 km/sec
e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 1,000 tons
HIGH
a.. Continuous thrust is limited to 1.0 g
b.. Continuous acceleration duration is entire length of mission
c.. Transient (peak) acceleration is 6 g's for a maximum of 1 hour
d.. Maximum increase in delta v is 300,000 km/sec
e.. Maximum vehicle payload mass is 10,000 tons
Lee
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE>BODY {
BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, =
"sans serif"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 68px
}
HR {
COLOR: #000000; HEIGHT: 1px; WIDTH: 100%
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3Dcid:650213622@09101998-0fd6 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT></STRONG></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DVerdana =
size=3D2>Okay, here is a=20
new and improved engine specification. Everyone please review it for any =
further=20
suggestions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><STRONG><FONT size=3D3>Revised Engine =
Performance=20
Specifications</STRONG></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=3D3></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2>LOW</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Continuous acceleration is limited to 0.1=20
g</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></LI>
<LI><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"" size=3D2>Continuous acceleration duration is limited to =
1/3 length of=20
mission</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Transient (peak)=20
acceleration at 1 g for a maximum of ten =
hours</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Maximum increase=20
in delta v is 100,000 km/sec</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Maximum vehicle=20
payload mass is 100 tons</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2>MEDIAN</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Continuous=20
acceleration is limited to 0.33 g</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Continuous=20
acceleration duration is limited to 2/3 length of=20
mission</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Transient (peak)=20
acceleration at 3 g's for a maximum of three =
hours</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Maximum increase=20
in delta v is 200,000 km/sec</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2>Maximum vehicle payload mass is =
1,000=20
tons</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2>HIGH</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Continuous=20
thrust is limited to 1.0 g</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Continuous=20
acceleration duration is entire length of =
mission</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Transient (peak)=20
acceleration is 6 g's for a maximum of 1 =
hour</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Maximum increase=20
in delta v is 300,000 km/sec</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D2>Maximum vehicle=20
payload mass is 10,000 tons</FONT></SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><SPAN =
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT=20
color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN=20
class=3D650213622-09101998><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>Lee</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, =
butcher a=20
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, =
build a=20
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, =
cooperate, act=20
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a =
computer,=20
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is =
for=20
insects.=20
<P>-- Robert A. Heinlein </P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_002E_01BDF3AE.68D39E00--
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Tech Tools.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <650213622@09101998-0fd6>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BDF3AE.68CA7640--
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4607" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4607
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08977
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08967
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NTSa02329
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:25 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8b31b985.361eab55@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:25 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> > It must of course start from building
>> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
>>
>> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some
>> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for our own
>> reasons <G>.
>>
>First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
>automated without human supervision, and will not without
>real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement.
>Teleoperation is also infeasible for interplanetary distances
>(remember Sojourner...), even on the Moon
>(ask Russian drivers of Lunokhods...).
Agree.
>Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
>habitat in space", and rather large for that.
>How to build one without any prior experience?
>Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
>that going to another star?
Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate and a lot
of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be. Size and weight being real
biggees. That fact we probably couldn't make it work being a better one.
Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly self sufficent.
>> > Also, the progress in this area is excruciatingly slow -
>> > it is even more annoying than the slow progress in point (1) above,
>> > as the progress in this area already needs no essential breakthroughs
>> > in science or technology, only the will and money.
>>
>> Umm, I would submit that it is more a matter of acquiring a historical tech
>> base of what works and what doesn't, which only happens in direct relation
>> to how much time we spend doing things in space to acquire this knowledge.
>> Sort of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It will get better as
>> we go along, probably a LOT better.
>>
>True, but we should START going in the first place.
>Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
>we made two steps back.
Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs
in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay for
space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have viciously
defended.
>With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
>and not always ahead.
>Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
>will build the necessary space infrastructure.
Big agree.
>So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
>(for Sagan).
Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space
exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment to mine
fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine for robots and
science probes.
>> > Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
>> > change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
>> > the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
>> > is very, very low.
>>
>> Well, there is that. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere (Warp
>> Drive When?) if we discover a habitable planet around another star, the
>> public will want to know why we haven't _already_ invented a warp drive!
>>
>I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
>around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
>be either inhabitable, or deadly.
Thanks.
>Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
>unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
>Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
>than help.
SETI is a no start, but the public is interested in space, they just gave up
on NASA boldly going back to the same place they got way beyond in the '60's
and killing more folks doing it.
>> Your club is a good start,
>>
>Thank you.
>Americans have such clubs aplenty and are certainly the foremost
>spacefaring nation in today's world. Most other nations are
>in deep freeze here (except, possibly, Japanese),
>but including most Europeans, despite ESA.
>Our humble attempt is to rouse some interest in space exploration,
>mostly among Poles. We are also involved in organizing
>the Polish Chapter of Mars Society.
>We will see if it produces any effects on this side
>of the Big Puddle.
>
>
>> there are also other avenues that help.
>> ANYTHING that encourages the commercial use of space should be helped
along.
>> Commercialization of space will result in the fastest overall growth path.
>>
>Here I fully agree.
Also agree
>-- Zenon Kulpa
Kelly
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["491" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 491
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08941
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08931
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GQEa17823
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:19 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <dd4b5c94.361eab4f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:19 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 7:42:16 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>A lot of the North American colonies were first scouted out by fishermen.
>
>Most of the colonies from Virginia northward started out as fishing camps
>
>that were occupied seasonally for many years before the first "colonists"
>
>came to stay, and they came on freighters and fishing boats.
>
>
>
>Lee
Fisherman? Technicaly a fishing camp isn't a colony, also the fishermen came
from the colony.
Kelly
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1347" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1347
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08952
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08939
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UFNa22759
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:21 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <62962904.361eab51@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:21 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 7:41:10 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>>
>
>> I was with you Lee until the last paragraph. Why would we start
>
>> by launching
>
>> fleets of hundreds of ships? We can't even figure out a
>
>> compeling reason to
>
>> launch one. Certainly "a new chance on a new world" seems off.
>
>> The one place
>
>> we couldn't settle would be the planets, and if were staying in space
>
>> platforms ther is no reason to leave this star system.
>
>>
>
>> What angle are you figuring on here?
>
>>
>
>
>
>At some point in time, whether it is fifty years from now or a hundred and
>
>fifty, crossing the gulf between the stars will have become simple. I am not
>
>making any predictions as to how, just that it will. At that point in time a
>
>whole new set of driving factors comes in to play, factors that don't even
>
>exist right now in some cases. When a slightly modified freighter or mining
>
>ship can make the crossing, everybody and their brother WILL be going. I did
>
>not mean it so much as a single agency or organization would be launching
>
>fleets of ships, just that "fleets" of ships would be leaving.
>
>
>
>Lee
Until you can figure out a why, I doubt there will be any more waves of ship
going out to colonize the stars then there are trying to colonize Antarctica
or te ocean floor.
kelly
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3010" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:37" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3010
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09042
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09028
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2RKRa08736
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:37 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <cb84ff83.361eab61@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:37 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>David Levine wrote:
>
>> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
>> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
>> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
>> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
>> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
>> next). Will it be possible or not?
>>
>> My gut instinct tells me "yes", but at a dramatic cost. What does
>> everyone else think?
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> David Levine david@playlink.com
>> Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
>> PlayLink (212) 387-8200
>> Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
>
>Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching
>Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital
>Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to
>pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the
>current state of space who can blame me?
A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not
geting chep enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric
military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to
drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current
tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable.
Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic
planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
>"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rust
>arounding the US.
>
>I could be wrong, if someone develops an inertialess drive. And vacuum
>energy tapping.
>
>But since this is an engineering exercise I'm willing to go along with it.
>Just how far ahead can we imagine?
>Tech-wise I mean.
>
>Another point is how willing we are to invoke antimatter, but just how much
>energy can it realistically produce in a rocket jet? I've heard estimates of
>only 1 - 2 %. That'd be fine [better than fusion], but we'd need to make the
>stuff in massive quantities. Ultra-high energy density lasers are becoming
>possible, so some sort of direct conversion system might yet happen in the
>near term. Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
>quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also
I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it
would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of
anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
Also the radiatino levels are real bad.
Kelly
>
>Pardon my ignore but what's VASIMR?
>
>Adam
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2848" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:31" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "68" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2848
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09010
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08997
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2LNTa02341
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:31 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <9bf76500.361eab5b@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:31 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 10:08:16 AM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: AJ Crowl[SMTP:ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 8:45 AM
>> Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>> Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be
>> launching
>> Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some
>> Orbital
>> Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be
>> starting to
>> pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but
>> given the
>> current state of space who can blame me?
>>
>>
>Actually, I'm gathering optimism about the state of the space industry -
>not because of NASA, but because of private companies. The X Prize is
>just one of things that is giving me confidence for the future of space
>travel.
>
>Sometimes people give timelines of where they think space travel will be
>over the next fifty years, and it normally involves the government and
>NASA (i.e. by this year we will return to the moon, by that year we will
>be at Mars, etc.). Instead, I'd like to offer a timeline for commercial
>space endeavors:
>
>2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism.
>2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism.
>2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research into
>materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing.
>2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon,
>experimental private industry research into asteroid mining.
>2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first
>asteroid mining.
Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply enough.
I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of launching
an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to think of a
way around.)
>Private companies will lead the way to a permanent presence in space, as
>long as there is money there. And we all know there is. However,
>asteroid mining and the like will be easier if there is an existing
>launch infrastructure, and I think this will be facilitated by space
>tourism. Yes, this tourism will mainly be for the rich in the
>beginning, but it doesn't matter if it helps jump start everything and
>eventually we all get to go.
>
>I may never get to another star, and I may never go to Mars or even the
>moon... but I'm pretty confident that before my life is over I will have
>gotten the chance to see the Earth from space.
>
>Call your senator today and tell them to vote YES on H. Res. 572. This
>bill (recently passed by the House) allows private U.S. companies to
>send reusable launch vehicles into space. The D.O.T. will license such
>companies.
I think they already passed this one?
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine
From VM Sat Oct 10 11:49:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1500" "Fri" "9" "October" "1998" "20:33:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1500
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09050
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09036
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PXTa02301
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:33 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <cccb7d29.361eab5d@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:33:33 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 6:23:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Okay, since we all pretty much agree that predicting what the engine will be
>
>is impossible, and that the likelihood of something unpredictable happening
>
>between now and fifty years from now is at least a non-zero number <G> lets
>
>do as Nels suggests and propose a set of requirements that will define
>
>performance parameters necessary to propel several different classes of
>
>ships. I would suggest basing the classes on a low median and high model of
>
>performance based on the following divisions:
>
>
>
>LOW: Thrust is not continuous, may never exceed 10 m/sec, total change in
>
>delta v of 100,000 km/sec (1/3 c)
>
>
>
>MEDIAN: Thrust may extend for long periods but is not normally for entire
>
>mission duration, may achieve transient thrust levels of up to 30 m/sec,
>
>total delta v limited to 200,000 km/sec (2/3 c)
>
>
>
>HIGH: Thrust is typically continuous over duration of mission, maximum
>
>acceleration is 90 m/sec, total delta v is 300,000 km/sec (0.99 c)
>
>
>
>All of these assume an acceleration deceleration phase with no reserve fuel,
>
>change in delta v is a maximum only and assumes there is enough fuel to
>
>decelerate also (in other words, the delta v figures should really be
>
>doubled).
>
>
>
>Comments or suggestions?
>
>
>
>Lee
Accel of over 10 m/ss seem overkill, and painfull. Even if your going to
light speed a 1 g boost isn't going to really increase your flight time.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4942" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "23:23:25" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "120" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4942
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01855
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA01848
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne2p07.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.135]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18772 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:22:46 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cb84ff83.361eab61@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:23:25 +1000
Hi Group
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >Hi Group,
> >
> >David Levine wrote:
> >
> >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
> >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> >> next). Will it be possible or not?
> >>
> >
> >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching
> >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital
> >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to
> >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the
> >current state of space who can blame me?
>
> A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not
> geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric
> military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to
> drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current
> tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable.
Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it could
get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times more
they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses CH4/LOX
but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp ~
+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the neighbours
getting such technology, can we?
With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super-fuel
mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced
scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space would
really happen...
>
>
> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic
> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it just
like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in diffusion.
As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found roving
about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty or
clayey.
>
>
> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rusting
>
> >around the US.
> >
Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with the
Shuttles and the old Saturns.
>
> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
>
> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also
> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it
> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of
> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced magnetic
materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc
super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy!
>
>
> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in quantity -
and no shielding stops them.
>
>
> Kelly
>
> >
> >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR?
> >
> >Adam
Still asking guys!
As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien
biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to
colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even more so
for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far because
we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and disease
transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological
systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I doubt
there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely
different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease.
If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and what
they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter -
weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for
centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
So I think the threat is overblown.
Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien
lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we are to
any exobiological entities.
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1217" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Engine Parameters" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1217
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13188
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13176
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2IGDa08737
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a8d4240b.3620eea8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 10:53:44 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Nels,
>
>
>
>> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
>
>> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
>
>> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
>
>> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
>
>> continue with the idea of manned missions....
>
>
>
>MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or
>
>vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs,
>
>most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9
>
>g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum
>
>design load.
>
>
>
>As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec
>
>(1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand
>
>version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume
>
>that is why you wrote the m/ss?
>
>
>
>Lee
>
Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there any sooner,
you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more during boost.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4825" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4825
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13269
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13263
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGFa02302
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2e6f3a10.3620eea5@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> >Ad. 1: Propulsion
>> >-----------------
>> >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough
>> >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
>> >from our perspective, namely:
>> >- fusion rocket;
>> >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
>> >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
>> >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
>> >a prototype build and tested in space.
>> >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
>> >in the foreseable future.
>>
>> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology.
>> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather.
>> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require
none.>
>
>I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
>and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
>still wait for breaktroughs.
We don't actually need sustained, and certainly thats not a major breakthrough
eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real applied work in fusion is
a major problem for our timeline, but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive
would get funding in the next few decades.
>Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers -
>that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means
>tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it
>highly impractical, if at all possible to build
>and keep in operation for tens of years.
Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of
SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it.
>Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
>of efficiency, but not only).
Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The
power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't
change much.
>The question of scale is important - for interstellar
>propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders
>of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now,
>which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work.
Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs.
>Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
>we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
>Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
>And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion...
>
>
>> Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat ,
>> now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost
>> interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors.
>> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
>>
>Not necessarily. They may find different application niches.
That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't think
it could compete in a economy with fusion systems.
>> >Ad. 2: Infrastructure
>> >---------------------
>[...]
>>
>> >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
>> >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
>> >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
>> >is very, very low.
>>
>> We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we
never
>> did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then
>> Apollo didn't make any sence eiather.
>>
>No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly):
>to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik).
>And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political).
>Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts,
>most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo
>was promptly wasted.
Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", but a historian
from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was avioded
as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable booster concept.
>As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth
>within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar
>may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human
>colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its
>independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen,
>or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology
>power step.
>Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years.
Agreed.
>
>-- Zenon Kulpa
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1132" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1132
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13229
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13217
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IVPa22052
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b18ba0fc.3620eeb7@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 4:56:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon
>
>> it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of
>
>> contact with a solid object.
>
>>
>
>
>
>Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is
>
>equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact
>
>weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the
>
>plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying.
>
>
>
>The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet
>
>ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is.
>
>
>
>Lee
If you really need to do super boost for a while you can float someone in a
fero fluid liguid. Like the clear liguid they fill premees lungs with so they
can "breath" until their lungs can handel air. Might need a bit of resporator
help but they tested rats in something like that up to 200 G's. One day ship
time at that rate and you'ld be near light speed.
So can we drop the idea of ionizing frogs? ;)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4882" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4882
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13203
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13194
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WMOa18750
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c4cddb6b.3620eeac@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>> > As far as I know, still only on paper.
>> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
>> > actual fusion reaction?
>>
>> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
>> and verified the energy output.
>>
>Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
>balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser
fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in
the '80's eaither.
>> In other words, the technology has been proven - the
>> actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper.
>>
>> > Ditto.
>> > And what about the antimatter factory?
>> > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter
>> > in several million years, counting optimistically...
>> > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter
>> > for years on?
>>
>> The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and
>> AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be
>> able to produce within the next twenty years.
>>
>But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight,
>not a single ICAN spacecraft.
>
>> Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested
>>
>The current containers can store only picograms or even less
>of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter),
>and can store the antiprotons only for few days
>(they slowly annihilate inside...).
>
>Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
>without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
>and technology.
Here we agree!
>> (they drove around the U.S. with the
>> storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I
>> guess it worked.)
>>
>That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time
>it will be possible...
>Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
>on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. I know
we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too.
>>>>=====
>
>> > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
>> > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
>> > be either inhabitable, or deadly.
>>
>> The only way to find out is to go.
>>
>Exactly. Almost.
>I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth.
>I am in no way against going to find out.
>
>
>> Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets,
>> I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for
>> sheep...and sheep herders.
>>
>Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
>(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
>for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
>artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing and
building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your not cut
off from resources and free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil.
>> > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
>> > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
>> > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
>> > than help.
>>
>> Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc
>> Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I.
>>
>I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs).
>However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding
>a "habitable" planet around another star.
>At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet
>will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there
>within the life of this generation.
Agreed
>It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside
>Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most)
>of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly
>habitable planet around another star may stir some public
>interest, not earlier.
Might be a big thing to the spacer, but to the Earth developed pop it will be
a noventy. But not a big event.
>
>I see that I must add a proper disclaimer:
>------------------------------------------
>I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think.
>My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved
>and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that
>all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately)
>may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence
>where a call to arms seems more appropriate.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2559" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2559
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13236
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13222
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HLEa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e8a0f3b9.3620eea1@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>[...]
>> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing
>> >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate
>> >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System.
>> >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible
>> >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich
>> >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private
>> >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here.
>> >The Mars Society awaits us...
>>
>> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
>> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization
>> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
>> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>>
>Possibly, but you must start from something.
>Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like
Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space.
>> >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in
fleets.
>> >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and
even
>> >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking
for
>> >> one thing - a new chance on a new world.
>> >>
>> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
>> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-
way...
>>
>> Not likely. ;)
>>
>Not likely what?
That it will settle our perennial quarrel.
>
>> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> and abondon them there to die.
>>
>That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>to understand that!
>Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give them
the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever after the
missions over. ;)
>> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
>> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
>> Earthly colonization projects.
>>
>Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>interplanetary-space society.
Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental new laws
of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2210" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2210
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13278
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13268
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5ABGa04133;
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e430b06d.3620eeb0@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 9:43:54 PM, you wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from
>> microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and
>> disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on
our
>> boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our
>> favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window.
>
>I assume the existance of non-antiobiotic treatments, such as
>nanotechnology.
Can't assume nano, even if you could, if were that modified why bother with a
planet. Also our microbe would be as likely to decimate the local eco-sphere.
>>
>> Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why
god
>> cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was
the
>> euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before
>> evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied
>> vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was
>> among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino
source.
>> We're talking about total historic isolation.
>
>If we are dealing with a sentient civilization, then we will have to
>deal with infection in a big way. If not, it shouldn't be too much of a
>problem. Most of the problems were caused by viruses and bacteria
>specifically evolved to attack humans...notice, many bacteriums that
>attack human do not attack other lifeforms on earth.
Some do some don't. Some bacteria and fungi eat anything from us to wood. As
long as they like wet protean based organisms were probably fair game.
>Therefore, with two
>different planets and two different ecosystems, the problem should not
>be so severe. The indians were different, granted, but also human. We
>will likely be quite different from the ecosystem of another world.
>Bacteria may still cause trouble, but probably nothing we cannot combat.
Our chemistry's will be the same (otherwise we wouldn't have called it a Earth
like world) so the bacterias biochem should work on us, but our immues system
probably won't.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1970" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "01:46:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "starship-design: Re: Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: Bugs" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1970
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA12667
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA12657
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem2402.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.137.98])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04763
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981012014601.0068b0a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au>
References: <cb84ff83.361eab61@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:46:01 +0100
Adam,
>As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien
>biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to
>colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even
>more so for pathogens.
Toxins are chemicals, while their presence eventually will cripple the host
it are virii, bacteria and larger organisms that are considered the initial
cause.
>I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too
>far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the
>one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other.
Yes, children's diseases like measles, pox and mumps are all viral
diseases. Virii are the least likely ones to attack us, since they need
compatible DNA.
Many virii are bound to a single species.
>Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with
>ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular
>homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to
>be documented as causing disease.
Hmmm, as far as I've heard, you are unlikely to spend a month in the jungle
to get a bunch of parasites like bacteria but also larger organisms. You
may not die from them, but that's likely because we've been battling them
during our evolution.
>If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and
>what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to
>encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling
>up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
Not so long ago I heard a story from a fisherman who stinged himself with a
fish hook. After a few hours he developed severe fever. He merely made it
in time to a hospital, otherwise he would have died from it.
(Antibiotics onboard likely could have helped him in an earlier stage though.)
>So I think the threat is overblown.
Not so sure.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1261" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:53:02" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1261
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23716
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA23700
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne4p39.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.39]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA28453 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:52:29 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3621ED9D.9AC55D1E@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e8a0f3b9.3620eea1@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:53:02 +1000
Hi Group,
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
>
> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
> >> Earthly colonization projects.
> >>
> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
> >interplanetary-space society.
>
> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new laws
>
> of society, culture, psychology, or economics.
You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful
societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable that
we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading"
becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is well
advanced.
Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that science is
dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by
trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to
agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the same
applies to all the sciences.
>
>
> >
> >-- Zenon
>
> Kelly
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 12 09:49:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1492" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "09:41:56" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: YES, we might do it." nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1492
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12830
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA12815
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3JBY>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:42:03 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:41:56 -0400
> ----------
> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism.
> >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism.
> >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research
> into
> >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing.
> >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon,
> >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining.
> >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first
> >asteroid mining.
>
> Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply
> enough.
> I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of
> launching
> an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to
> think of a
> way around.)
>
>
>
I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by
industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be
operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future.
Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest
customers might not be on the Earth.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:18 1998
Content-Length: 4942
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4942" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "23:23:25" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "120" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4942
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01855
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA01848
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne2p07.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.135]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18772 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:22:46 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cb84ff83.361eab61@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:23:25 +1000
Hi Group
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >Hi Group,
> >
> >David Levine wrote:
> >
> >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
> >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
> >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
> >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
> >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
> >> next). Will it be possible or not?
> >>
> >
> >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be launching
> >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some Orbital
> >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting to
> >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given the
> >current state of space who can blame me?
>
> A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is not
> geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric
> military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market to
> drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current
> tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable.
Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it could
get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times more
they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses CH4/LOX
but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp ~
+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the neighbours
getting such technology, can we?
With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super-fuel
mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced
scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space would
really happen...
>
>
> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically toxic
> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it just
like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in diffusion.
As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found roving
about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty or
clayey.
>
>
> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is rusting
>
> >around the US.
> >
Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with the
Shuttles and the old Saturns.
>
> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
>
> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities. Also
> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean it
> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton of
> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced magnetic
materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc
super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy!
>
>
> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in quantity -
and no shielding stops them.
>
>
> Kelly
>
> >
> >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR?
> >
> >Adam
Still asking guys!
As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien
biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to
colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even more so
for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far because
we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and disease
transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological
systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I doubt
there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely
different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease.
If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and what
they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter -
weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for
centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
So I think the threat is overblown.
Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien
lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we are to
any exobiological entities.
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:19 1998
Content-Length: 1217
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1217" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Engine Parameters" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1217
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13188
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13176
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2IGDa08737
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a8d4240b.3620eea8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 10:53:44 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Nels,
>
>
>
>> An acceleration of 90 m/ss for your high engine performance is
>
>> impractical. This is for the simple reason that this equals about nine
>
>> gee's. Even if an engine could be made to do this, no human frame can
>
>> take that much acceleration for more than a few minutes (here I assume we
>
>> continue with the idea of manned missions....
>
>
>
>MOST of our current chemical rockets can do this, so building an engine or
>
>vehicle that can withstand 9 g's isn't impossible, as for special designs,
>
>most modern homebuilt kit planes are designed for a maximum loading of 9
>
>g's. There isn't anything terribly special about using this as a maximum
>
>design load.
>
>
>
>As for continuous acceleration, for the high end category I think 10 m/sec
>
>(1 g) should be the absolute minimum. BTW, before someone jumps my shorthand
>
>version, I am purposely not writing the ^2, its a danged nuisance...I assume
>
>that is why you wrote the m/ss?
>
>
>
>Lee
>
Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there any sooner,
you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more during boost.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:21 1998
Content-Length: 4825
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4825" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "125" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4825
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13269
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13263
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGFa02302
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2e6f3a10.3620eea5@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:09 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/7/98 12:43:35 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> >Ad. 1: Propulsion
>> >-----------------
>> >I think it will not be possible, unless some real breaktrough
>> >occurs in one or more propulsion system ideas that seem feasible
>> >from our perspective, namely:
>> >- fusion rocket;
>> >- giant lasers (possibly solar-powered);
>> >- antimatter rocket (including an efficient antimatter factory).
>> >I mean, unless the real working design will be proposed,
>> >a prototype build and tested in space.
>> >As for now, nothing of the sort seems to occur
>> >in the foreseable future.
>>
>> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology.
>> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather.
>> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to require
none.>
>
>I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
>and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
>still wait for breaktroughs.
We don't actually need sustained, and certainly thats not a major breakthrough
eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real applied work in fusion is
a major problem for our timeline, but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive
would get funding in the next few decades.
>Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers -
>that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means
>tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it
>highly impractical, if at all possible to build
>and keep in operation for tens of years.
Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of
SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it.
>Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
>of efficiency, but not only).
Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The
power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't
change much.
>The question of scale is important - for interstellar
>propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders
>of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now,
>which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work.
Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs.
>Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
>we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
>Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
>And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion...
>
>
>> Thou given the extream lack of effort in fusion or space solar power sat ,
>> now its obviously not progressing. But future demand is expected to boost
>> interest in the near future. A big problem is the two are competitors.
>> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
>>
>Not necessarily. They may find different application niches.
That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't think
it could compete in a economy with fusion systems.
>> >Ad. 2: Infrastructure
>> >---------------------
>[...]
>>
>> >Summing up, if something does not, rather dramatically,
>> >change the attitudes and goals of humanity concerning space,
>> >the probability of launching a starship within fifty years
>> >is very, very low.
>>
>> We can evaluate could do's, easier then would do's. Like I've said, we
never
>> did figure out why anyone would do such a masive project in 2050, but then
>> Apollo didn't make any sence eiather.
>>
>No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly):
>to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik).
>And a technology advance sense too (though mostly subordinated to political).
>Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts,
>most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo
>was promptly wasted.
Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle", but a historian
from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was avioded
as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable booster concept.
>As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth
>within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar
>may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human
>colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its
>independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen,
>or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology
>power step.
>Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years.
Agreed.
>
>-- Zenon Kulpa
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:22 1998
Content-Length: 1132
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1132" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:27" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1132
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13229
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13217
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IVPa22052
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b18ba0fc.3620eeb7@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Weightless (was: Engine Parameters)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:27 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 4:56:08 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> But the frog is not weightless, that frog still feels a 1 g force upon
>
>> it's body, but that force is transmitted by magnetic fields instead of
>
>> contact with a solid object.
>
>>
>
>
>
>Not true, IF the field is actually doing as advertised then the effect is
>
>equal upon every atom of the frog at the same time. It is, in fact
>
>weightless. It is NOT standing upon a plate isolated from the field, and the
>
>plate is levitating; which is equivalent to what you are saying.
>
>
>
>The problem still remains that we can't do it with humans, and I'm not yet
>
>ready to bet that it is actually doing what they say it is.
>
>
>
>Lee
If you really need to do super boost for a while you can float someone in a
fero fluid liguid. Like the clear liguid they fill premees lungs with so they
can "breath" until their lungs can handel air. Might need a bit of resporator
help but they tested rats in something like that up to 200 G's. One day ship
time at that rate and you'ld be near light speed.
So can we drop the idea of ionizing frogs? ;)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:23 1998
Content-Length: 4882
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4882" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4882
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13203
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13194
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WMOa18750
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c4cddb6b.3620eeac@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>> > As far as I know, still only on paper.
>> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
>> > actual fusion reaction?
>>
>> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
>> and verified the energy output.
>>
>Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
>balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser
fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in
the '80's eaither.
>> In other words, the technology has been proven - the
>> actual engine has not been built. But it is far from being only on paper.
>>
>> > Ditto.
>> > And what about the antimatter factory?
>> > Current annual production is able to deliver a kilogram of antimatter
>> > in several million years, counting optimistically...
>> > And what about reliable containers capable to hold tons of antimatter
>> > for years on?
>>
>> The production of antimatter is currently very low, however, ICAN and
>> AIMSTAR do not need much, the amounts are well within what we expect to be
>> able to produce within the next twenty years.
>>
>But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight,
>not a single ICAN spacecraft.
>
>> Storage technology is hard science, already built, and tested
>>
>The current containers can store only picograms or even less
>of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter),
>and can store the antiprotons only for few days
>(they slowly annihilate inside...).
>
>Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
>without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
>and technology.
Here we agree!
>> (they drove around the U.S. with the
>> storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're still here so I
>> guess it worked.)
>>
>That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time
>it will be possible...
>Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
>on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. I know
we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too.
>>>>=====
>
>> > I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
>> > around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
>> > be either inhabitable, or deadly.
>>
>> The only way to find out is to go.
>>
>Exactly. Almost.
>I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth.
>I am in no way against going to find out.
>
>
>> Besides, I am not a fan of settling other planets,
>> I think we should start by settling the system, planets are for
>> sheep...and sheep herders.
>>
>Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
>(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
>for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
>artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing and
building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your not cut
off from resources and free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil.
>> > Moreover, so what? I do not think the public will care much,
>> > unless general attitudes toward space exploration change significantly.
>> > Hence I also consider SETI to be currently more of a distraction
>> > than help.
>>
>> Perhaps not, I was merely paraphrasing someone else. It was either Marc
>> Millis or Carl Sagan, either way, they certainly know more than I.
>>
>I do not question your knowledge (nor theirs).
>However, I doubt if public will be so excited by finding
>a "habitable" planet around another star.
>At least not in these times - the presence of such a planet
>will change nothing in our life and our abilities to go there
>within the life of this generation.
Agreed
>It will be another thing if the possibility of living outside
>Earth by a significant number of people for all (or most)
>of their lives becomes a common fact. Then finding a similarly
>habitable planet around another star may stir some public
>interest, not earlier.
Might be a big thing to the spacer, but to the Earth developed pop it will be
a noventy. But not a big event.
>
>I see that I must add a proper disclaimer:
>------------------------------------------
>I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think.
>My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved
>and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that
>all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately)
>may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence
>where a call to arms seems more appropriate.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:24 1998
Content-Length: 2559
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2559" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2559
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13236
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13222
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HLEa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e8a0f3b9.3620eea1@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:05 EDT
In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>[...]
>> >That is also exactly my point. Hence I think that the best thing
>> >we can do to make interstellar flight possible is to advocate
>> >and support the manned exploration and settling of Solar System.
>> >As fast as possible (or faster) and as extensively as possible
>> >(or still more...). Initiatives like Mars Direct and Zubrin/Gingrich
>> >concept of financing them by the "Mars Awards" to the private
>> >enterpreneurs are certainly the most promising here.
>> >The Mars Society awaits us...
>>
>> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
>> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization
>> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
>> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>>
>Possibly, but you must start from something.
>Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like
Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space.
>> >> In one thing at least you are right, when we do go, it will be in
fleets.
>> >> Not necessarily all to one star system, but there will be hundreds and
even
>> >> thousands of ships going out, to every star within reach, all looking
for
>> >> one thing - a new chance on a new world.
>> >>
>> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
>> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will be one-
way...
>>
>> Not likely. ;)
>>
>Not likely what?
That it will settle our perennial quarrel.
>
>> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> and abondon them there to die.
>>
>That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>to understand that!
>Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give them
the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever after the
missions over. ;)
>> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
>> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
>> Earthly colonization projects.
>>
>Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>interplanetary-space society.
Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental new laws
of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:25 1998
Content-Length: 2210
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2210" "Sun" "11" "October" "1998" "13:45:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against." nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2210
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13278
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13268
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 5ABGa04133;
Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e430b06d.3620eeb0@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:45:20 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/98 9:43:54 PM, you wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Thats a VERY big if! We still can't control deseases and infectinos from
>> microbes we evolved to survive. Even our vounted anti-biotics and
>> disinfectants are starting to fail badly. Most medicine still relies on
our
>> boidis ability to fight off the infectinos if we can stack the deck in our
>> favor. In another ecosphere all thats out the window.
>
>I assume the existance of non-antiobiotic treatments, such as
>nanotechnology.
Can't assume nano, even if you could, if were that modified why bother with a
planet. Also our microbe would be as likely to decimate the local eco-sphere.
>>
>> Ever hear of Manifest destiny? It was started as a concept to expain why
god
>> cleared out all the indians ahead of the colonists. The real reason was
the
>> euro deseases. Many tribes lost well over 90% of their population before
>> evenb seeing a white person. So the white found a continent of emptied
>> vilages, and decimated tribe. Land cleared by God for our use. That was
>> among people isolated for tens of thousands of years from an infectino
source.
>> We're talking about total historic isolation.
>
>If we are dealing with a sentient civilization, then we will have to
>deal with infection in a big way. If not, it shouldn't be too much of a
>problem. Most of the problems were caused by viruses and bacteria
>specifically evolved to attack humans...notice, many bacteriums that
>attack human do not attack other lifeforms on earth.
Some do some don't. Some bacteria and fungi eat anything from us to wood. As
long as they like wet protean based organisms were probably fair game.
>Therefore, with two
>different planets and two different ecosystems, the problem should not
>be so severe. The indians were different, granted, but also human. We
>will likely be quite different from the ecosystem of another world.
>Bacteria may still cause trouble, but probably nothing we cannot combat.
Our chemistry's will be the same (otherwise we wouldn't have called it a Earth
like world) so the bacterias biochem should work on us, but our immues system
probably won't.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:29 1998
Content-Length: 1970
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1970" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "01:46:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "starship-design: Re: Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: Bugs" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1970
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA12667
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA12657
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem2402.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.137.98])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA04763
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 12:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981012014601.0068b0a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au>
References: <cb84ff83.361eab61@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:46:01 +0100
Adam,
>As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien
>biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to
>colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even
>more so for pathogens.
Toxins are chemicals, while their presence eventually will cripple the host
it are virii, bacteria and larger organisms that are considered the initial
cause.
>I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too
>far because we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the
>one hand, and disease transfer between different biochemistries on the other.
Yes, children's diseases like measles, pox and mumps are all viral
diseases. Virii are the least likely ones to attack us, since they need
compatible DNA.
Many virii are bound to a single species.
>Perhaps exobiological systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with
>ours, but beyond that I doubt there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular
>homologies do arise between widely different species, but these are yet to
>be documented as causing disease.
Hmmm, as far as I've heard, you are unlikely to spend a month in the jungle
to get a bunch of parasites like bacteria but also larger organisms. You
may not die from them, but that's likely because we've been battling them
during our evolution.
>If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and
>what they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to
>encounter - weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling
>up nets for centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
Not so long ago I heard a story from a fisherman who stinged himself with a
fish hook. After a few hours he developed severe fever. He merely made it
in time to a hospital, otherwise he would have died from it.
(Antibiotics onboard likely could have helped him in an earlier stage though.)
>So I think the threat is overblown.
Not so sure.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:33 1998
Content-Length: 1261
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1261" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:53:02" "+1000" "Amanda & Adam Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1261
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA23716
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA23700
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 04:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne4p39.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.39]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA28453 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:52:29 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <3621ED9D.9AC55D1E@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e8a0f3b9.3620eea1@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: Amanda & Adam Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:53:02 +1000
Hi Group,
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
>
> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed on
> >> Earthly colonization projects.
> >>
> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
> >interplanetary-space society.
>
> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new laws
>
> of society, culture, psychology, or economics.
You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful
societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable that
we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading"
becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is well
advanced.
Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that science is
dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by
trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to
agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the same
applies to all the sciences.
>
>
> >
> >-- Zenon
>
> Kelly
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 12 16:04:33 1998
Content-Length: 1492
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1492" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "09:41:56" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: YES, we might do it." nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1492
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12830
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA12815
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3JBY>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:42:03 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 09:41:56 -0400
> ----------
> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism.
> >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism.
> >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research
> into
> >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing.
> >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon,
> >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining.
> >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first
> >asteroid mining.
>
> Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply
> enough.
> I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of
> launching
> an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to
> think of a
> way around.)
>
>
>
I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by
industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be
operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future.
Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest
customers might not be on the Earth.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["7761" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "227" "starship-design: Fwd: Florida Today ISS artical" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 7761
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11510
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11494
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ROIa02316;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:28 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <130e7046.3622c42c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_908248108_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Florida Today ISS artical
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:28 EDT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_908248108_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248108@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
FYI
--part0_908248108_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248108@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (rly-ya01.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.193])
by air-ya04.mx.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:58:34
-0400
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by rly-ya01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id PAA06862 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA08717
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA08699
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130870; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:59:41 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:13 -0500
Message-ID: <00130870.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: Florida Today ISS artical
To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
For Oct. 7, 1998
Goldin: NASA needs Russian bailout bucks or station could be
history
By Larry Wheeler
FLORIDA TODAY
WASHINGTON - If the White House and Congress don't give NASA money
to bail out its Russian partners, it will be time to pull the plug on
the $40 billion
International Space Staion, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin said
Wednesday.
Goldin's startling comment came under pressure from angry lawmakers
during a
hastily arranged hearing to explore NASA's request for an additional
$1.2 billion
for the planned outpost.
"If we cannot fund this properly because of the budget deal, then
maybe
we ought
to cancel the space station," said Goldin in response to pointed
questions by
Republican and Democratic members of the House Science Committee.
"I would say this project will have to be terminated unless there is a
commitment
by the government that we have to give it the resources we need."
In an unusual display of candor, Goldin acknowledged the titanic
difficulties
posed by the project pushed him to the brink of resignation but he
decided
against it.
With just days left until Congress adjourns, lawmakers could barely
contain their
hostility toward the Clinton administration and NASA.
"It is not a mere coincidence that the administration waited until the
last and
busiest week of this Congress to propose another bailout of Russia,"
said House
Science Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis.
"The administration is backing us into a corner and setting up a
confrontation that
could undermine all of the good things our space program has
accomplished."
Sensenbrenner accused the Clinton administration of lying to Congress
four years
ago when it promised that Russia would be a helpful addition to the
station
partnership and would not be placed in the "critical path" leading to
construction
and development of the research platform.
However, just the opposite has occurred.
NASA has been whipsawed and crippled by its reliance on the Russian
government to fund essential elements of the station, Sensenbrenner
and
other
lawmakers said.
NASA already has paid Russia $472 million for access to its Mir space
station
and $210 million to build the first piece of station hardware
currently
scheduled to
launch Nov. 20.
Now, the agency is asking for at least $660 million to buy hardware,
launch
services and other goods Russia will not be able to provide on its
own.
The agency also may be requesting an additional $600 million in future
years to
build U.S. launch and orbit components that will replace equipment
Russia
originally had promised to deliver.
Where the money will come from was not settled at Wednesday's hearing.
The House Science Committee has no jurisdiction over NASA spending.
The
panel can pass authorizing legislation setting out spending levels for
certain
programs, but it is the Appropriations Committee that holds the purse
strings.
Tuesday, the House passed the annual appropriations bill containing
NASA's
budget for fiscal 1999, which started Oct. 1.
The space agency is to receive $13.6 billion. The amount reflects the
Clinton
administration's request but does not include Russian bail out funds.
Despite the vast uncertainties about funding, Goldin confirmed it is
still his
intention to launch the first Russian-built piece of station hardware
in
November
to be followed Dec. 3 by shuttle Endeavour with a connecting node.
"We are go for launch in November and December," said Goldin.
NASA's desire to launch in the face of so many unknowns is
irresponsible, said
James Oberg, a former shuttle engineer who is now a space industry
consultant
and was called to appear before the Science Committee along with
Goldin.
"The launch of the (the first station component) under these
conditions
is the
longest Hail Mary pass in history," said Oberg.
Unlike the Apollo and shuttle programs - large NASA projects that also
faced
schedule slips, cost overruns and last-minute changes - the station's
constantly
changing status is far more threatening, Oberg warned.
"The space station ducks aren't in a row, and they don't stay in a
row,"
he said.
"Chasing ducks is something we should not be doing two months before
launch."
Judyth Twigg, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth
University, cast
doubt on NASA's plan to send more money to Russia.
The issue with Russia isn't money, said Twigg who is an expert on the
Russian
space industry.
The former Soviet space industry has been so degraded by years of
neglect, a
short-term infusion of cash isn't likely to restore its health, she
said.
"The events of the last decade have produced degradation of both
operational
and industrial capability, to the point that even a substantial
infusion
of new
funding could not renew previous levels of activity in the short or
medium term,"
Twigg said. "In other words, money is a necessary, but not a
sufficient,
short-term
fix."
Despite assurances from Goldin that new funds would be narrowly
targeted
and
closely monitored, Sensenbrenner said he would be reluctant to
authorize
such
spending.
He then offered Goldin and the Clinton administration an ultimatum:
"If we don't see some willingness to meet Congress in the middle and
some
acceptance of reality from the White House soon, then I plan to spend
my
time
working with the other members of this committee and drafting
legislation for the
next Congress that will put an end to this problem, one way or
another.
"My colleagues and I may find a way to do that and keep Russia in the
program.
We might not."
--part0_908248108_boundary--
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["17607" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "501" "starship-design: Fwd: James Oberg ISS statement" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 17607
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11515
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11495
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JPSa17824;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:36 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2d95a0b9.3622c434@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_908248117_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: James Oberg ISS statement
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:36 EDT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_908248117_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248117@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
FYI
--part0_908248117_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248117@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (rly-ya03.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.195])
by air-ya02.mx.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:49:31
-0400
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id PAA27627 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07461
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:49:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07452
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:49:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130800; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:50:33 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:48:12 -0500
Message-ID: <00130800.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: James Oberg ISS statement
To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
October 7, 1998
10:00 am - 12:00 noon
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
OPENING STATEMENT
James Oberg
Good morning. I am pleased to be able to raise some independent issues about
the Russian space partnership for the International Space Station.
I want to address the following points:
-- Russia's inability to fulfill its promises is NOT due to any temporary
conditions which will easily go away;
-- as we get closer to first launch, the wobbly assembly strategy is a clear
warning that something is fundamentally wrong;
-- based on recent actual Russian spacecraft experience, alarm bells should
be ringing about the reliability of the latest promises that the Service
Module is "almost finished" and nearly ready to fly;
-- NASA overestimates the effectiveness of massive cash infusions into the
Russian space industry, in part because of deliberate blindness towards ample
evidence of corruption;
-- recent Russian attempts to prolong the life of Mir for another two or more
years would violate promises to NASA and would shatter any hope of adequate
Russian launch support for ISS;
-- every promised benefit of bringing on the Russians as ISS partners has
collapsed, including the idea of making the project faster and better and
cheaper, and the hope that it would forestall the flow of Russian missile
technology into rogue states;
-- the rush to launch the first elements six weeks from now is an attempt to
prevent proper independent assessment of the new situation, and amounts to
holding the future of the US space program hostage to continuing a failed
strategy.
After consistently being wrong about Russia's ability to fulfill its space
promises, NASA still clings to the hope that the problem with our relationship
is only superficial, only temporary, and that there's light at the end of the
tunnel. In previous years, we were told that full financing would surely come
after the end of the Chechen War, or after the presidential runoffs, or after
the presidential elections, or after this or that new treaty or new summit
meeting or new Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission session. And it never, ever did.
But the lack of Russian government funding for ISS is not the result of the
current financial crisis, as has been claimed. It is instead the policy set
more than a year ago when the Russian Space Agency was told to take bank loans
and sell off its assets to obtain required funds. The Russian government has
not simply NOT paid the required money, it has demanded -- incredibly -- that
IT receive money FROM the Russian Space Agency in the form of value-added
taxes ("delivery taxes") on space hardware that the Russian Space Agency has
somehow managed to fund.
Certainly, we know from history that all major new space projects prove more
difficult than expected. But there is a fundamental difference between what it
looked like as we approached the first flight of Apollo, or Skylab, or
Shuttle, and the way things are shaping up as we approach the International
Space Station. For those previous programs, the complexities and difficulties
often required major adjustments in design or schedules. But because of the
quality of technological management, those difficulties were confronted and
solved well in advance of the final countdowns.
For example, although the space shuttle marched in place for almost two years
at the Launch Minus Twelve Months point, once all the pieces fell into place
those last months proceeded almost without pause toward a successful launch.
But for ISS, the closer we seem to get to launch, the more the pieces are
falling apart, the greater the uncertainty is about critical downstream
support. This should tell us something about the technological and management
inadequacies that must be repaired before committing any hardware to flight.
Using the wrong metrics is another source of problems. For example, measuring
the completion of spacecraft in general, and of the Service Module in
particular, by weight of installed hardware is silly. Two years ago we were
told the module was 90% complete, now it's supposed to be 98% complete with
only a few systems missing. But as NASA has been told, those are often
critical systems from contractors that in some instances no longer even
manufacture such hardware (for example, the Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator, which
caused the near-fatal fire in February 1997 for which the Russians have STILL
not provided NASA the final accident report). There remains a great deal of
assembly work to be done that remains out of sight and out of mind for NASA.
And software, one of the most notorious "long poles" in the ISS tent, weighs
nothing, so its impact on work-yet-to-be-done gets slighted in this
measurement scheme. Compare these claims with that from a manager of the ill-
fated "Lewis" spacecraft who testified that the vehicle was 95% complete, even
before a contract had been signed to produce the flight software.
Let's also not judge the Service Module's likely completion process by the
smooth schedule we saw for the FGB. That module was amply funded and was built
by a healthy, highly motivated organization. But things are different for the
Service Module. A better analogy for a highly complex Russian spacecraft being
built by a bankrupt space organization would be the Mars-96 probe. Two years
ago, after years of delay, of cutting corners, of appeals for foreign
financial support, of corruption scandals, and finally of frantic work to meet
an interplanetary launch window, this most sophisticated ever Russian
spacecraft was launched towards Mars, and promptly failed.
By the way, it's interesting to note how international diplomacy has
interfered with accurate assessments of safety issues in this case (as in
others). To this day, space officials in Moscow and Washington BOTH prefer to
believe that the off-course probe and its eighteen plutonium batteries fell
harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean, when the best evidence is that the wreckage
is on dry ground in the Andes Mountains near the Chile-Bolivia border.
Pretending otherwise is an abdication of responsibility to the health of the
local population -- but it's convenient, and doesn't threaten to embarrass the
Russians.
More relevant to the Service Module's future, and to the future of the ISS,
the Mars-96 accident investigation team was led by the same Professor Utkin
who assists the Stafford Commission on assessing the safety of Russian
spacecraft. After months of work, Utkin's team reportedly failed to find ANY
reason for Mars-96 to have failed, even with the knowledge that it already HAD
failed. This does not encourage our hope that these same experts can
accurately assess the future reliability of the Service Module, now being
assembled under conditions just as bad as those which doomed Mars-96.
There are plenty of other things about our Russian partners that NASA has
simply not wanted to see, or has even wanted NOT to see. For example, NASA has
made certain that evidence of corruption within the Russian space industry
would not distract its decision makers. Regarding these notorious cosmonaut
mansions at Star City -- which some White House experts still blindly dismiss
as merely "allegations" -- within NASA it was a strict rule NOT to see or
mention them. When one NASA official was outraged enough to describe them in a
trip report, he was ordered to rewrite and resubmit the report after deleting
mention of the mansions. Other NASA workers at Star City have told me that it
was made clear to them all that any overt interest in these houses would be
severely "career limiting". Such a policy makes it easier for higher officials
to act surprised and incredulous when confronted with independent evidence for
such diversion of funds.
Another potential surprise is connected with the fate of the Mir space
station. Fortified with spare parts ferried up on NASA shuttles, the Mir has
flown on recently with less visible troubles than last year. But since the
Russians can only build about five or six Soyuz and Progress vehicles, the
kind which support Mir and which will support the ISS, any continuation of Mir
beyond next year threatens to divert irreplaceable resources from ISS. So
under intense NASA pressure, the Russians agreed to de-orbit the Mir in June
1999.
But many Russian space officials objected to this capitulation to NASA
interests and advocated keeping Mir open for at least two years more -- which
would require numerous additional Soyuz and Progress support flights. In
recent weeks, these wishes have been transformed into active negotiations with
Western financiers to prolong Mir's lifetime. Yuri Maslyukov, Russia's First
Deputy Prime Minister and a protégé of the new prime minister Gennadiy
Primakov, has reportedly led this effort, with support from space-hopping
Kremlin aide Yuriy Baturin and from Energia Corporation officials such as V.
Nikitskiy and Valeriy Ryumin (NASA generously gave Ryumin a courtesy Mir visit
flight on a shuttle last June -- he came back determined to repudiate Russian
promises about terminating Mir). Further, some recent repair work on Mir
doesn't seem to make much sense except as preparation for extending its
lifetime beyond the promised termination date.
Now, here's the rub. The latest ISS manifest released last week by NASA shows
nine Soyuz and Progress flights by Russia in the year 2000 (plus a tenth Soyuz
launch of a modified Progress carrying an ISS module), all to ISS. So if there
is ANY extension of Mir's lifetime to 2000 and beyond, the new NASA plans must
go the way of all previous plans, onto the scrap heap.
Let's step further back and view the big picture. It's clear that every
promise made for the value of the Russian partnership when NASA sold the idea
to the White House back in 1993 has collapsed. The idea that it would be
quicker and cheaper was incredible to experts even in 1993, to everyone, that
is, but NASA experts.
Meanwhile, NASA continues to use creative bookkeeping to conceal the billions
of dollars of extra costs associated with the Russian partnership. One such
cost is what I call the "Russian Access Tax" that the US will have to pay on
EVERY shuttle launch to carry cargo to an orbit northerly enough for the
Russians to reach -- a loss of a large fraction of the shuttle's cargo
carrying capacity. Now, it's true NASA has enhanced this capacity to make up
for these losses, but those same improvements could also be applied to more
convenient orbits as well. In practical terms, this means that four shuttle
flights are required to carry the same cargo to the "Russian orbit" that three
flights could carry to a more efficient orbit. Over the life of the ISS, with
more than a hundred shuttle flights expected, about a quarter of them -- ten
billion dollars worth or more -- are required merely to allow the Russians to
be partners.
Also, the idea that pouring money into the Russian space industry could
prevent 'missile mischief' with rogue states has turned out to be another
illusion. Hundreds of thousands of rocket engineers in Russia have been laid
off over the past decade (particularly from military missile plants) and there
never were more than a few hundred free-lance employment opportunities
overseas anyway. The abundance of available Russian rocket experts for hire
abroad is shown by the relatively low price they can demand -- according to
Russian journalist Evgeniya Albats, about $200 cash per month. And that
doesn't even count full-scale contracts with Russian space corporations.
And how about all of the wonderfully valuable "Russian space experience" that
we hear lip service to? NASA has shown instead that it has to learn things
again on its own, such as on Shuttle-Mir, which caught NASA by surprise time
and time again. And in the end, we must ask, if Russia's experience with space
stations was so valuable to NASA, why is NASA again in such a space station
mess?
What is to be done now? I suggest that instead of clinging reflexively to
remnants of a strategy which is growing more and more threatened at many
points, we concentrate on the important goal of getting a fully outfitted US
Lab module operational as soon as possible. Past plans and past expenditures
are, in the phrase used by pilots, "runway behind us". We have to get from
where we are NOW to where we want to be.
Meanwhile, putting the FGB and US Node into orbit now, before a serious
reevaluation of the program can be carried out, is an attempt to hold the
entire US manned space program hostage to a failed strategy. The "rush" is on
to prevent deliberative investigation of the changed circumstances vis-a-vis
Russia.
There are symbolic, stylistic, and substantive steps that can be taken.
Symbolically, if the Russians are selling us all their research time for the
next few years, and it's US money which is keeping the entire project on
track, the station crew commanders for this phase should all be Americans. For
flight two and four, cosmonauts had been designated to be in command. Under
the changed circumstances, that decision should be changed.
In terms of style, NASA has proven itself incapable of learning from anyone
else's experience with dealing with Russian partners, and even has great
difficulty getting its own internal experience to the people who need it. This
is a problem with leadership. If there are people at NASA with an unbroken
track record of being wrong about Russian developments, the obvious fix is to
replace them.
In terms of substance, the mindless momentum toward an FGB/Node launch based
on the same illusory hopes for future Russian support, hopes that have been
dashed year after year after year, should be reconsidered, if not by NASA than
by those who can influence NASA. There should be an immediate independent
assessment of the actual cost of delaying the FGB/Node launch by up to six
months.
Experience should have taught us that before committing hardware to space
flight -- a very hostile place full of unpleasant surprises -- we should
minimize surprises back on Earth. At the very least, the Service Module and
OTHER downstream Russian support hardware must be certified "on track" by some
independent evaluation, and the threat of Mir-related diversions must be
ended, most reliably by the termination of that program. Such steps could take
several months. Until such steps are taken, I consider it foolhardy to
deliberately enhance programmatic risk -- and our vulnerability to future
blackmail -- by launching the first elements.
At the same time, a credible, independent assessment must finally be made of
the "no-Russian" option. We've heard the official claims that it would cost
billions more, but those claims are from people who are overlooking billions
and billions of dollars of operational expenses which are required for -- and
only for -- keeping the Russians aboard. These same experts have consistently
misjudged schedule and cost and quality benefits attributed to Russian
participation, and it seems to me they deserve no further credibility from
the public and from Congress.
Until we take such reality-based steps, I am concerned that NASA's long record
of being repeatedly caught by surprise by new Russian problems will continue
unbroken into the next century, at immense cost to the American space program
and to the hopes of all of us who wish it to succeed.
Thank you for this opportunity to present these ideas. I am grateful to many,
many dedicated and experienced space engineers both inside and outside of the
space station program for sharing their concerns and suggestions with me, and
I have attempted to be their spokesman on these issues.
--part0_908248117_boundary--
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["482" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:02" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 482
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11746
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11710
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VLVRa17798;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:02 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <7b48cdc2.3622c44e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:02 EDT
In a message dated 10/10/98 7:05:55 PM, you wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>>
>
>> Fisherman? Technicaly a fishing camp isn't a colony, also the
>
>> fishermen came
>
>> from the colony.
>
>>
>
>
>
>No a fishing camp isn't a colony, its a camp. The camp came first then the
>
>colony. The fisherman came to the Grand Banks before most of the colonists
>
>did.
>
>
>
>Lee
Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and antarctic buy euros,
but thats did start a colony?
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1952" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:07" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1952
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11583
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11571
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IOUa03785
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:07 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:07 EDT
In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
>> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed
on
>> >> Earthly colonization projects.
>> >>
>> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>> >interplanetary-space society.
>>
>> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikely to find any fundamental new
laws
>>
>> of society, culture, psychology, or economics.
>
>You think so? I would've thought that such would only be feasible by careful
>societal crafting and research into psychology etc. I think it's foreseeable
that
>we'll achieve great insights into how humans tick, especially if "uploading"
>becomes possible and computer analysis of brain-structure and programming is
well
>advanced.
No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that drive
them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture, psychology,
or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would be
like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every
century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make it up
in volume.
>Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that
science
>is
>dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by
>trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to
>agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the
same
>applies to all the sciences.
Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn
anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong.
Neutons laws of gravity still work fine.
>> >
>> >-- Zenon
>>
>> Kelly
>
>Adam
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["9060" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "188" "starship-design: Fwd: James Sensenbrenner iss statements" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 9060
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11528
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11507
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AIJa02328;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:42 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1046b1c8.3622c43a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_908248123_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, JohnFrance@aol.com,
MARK.A.JENSEN@cpmx.mail.saic.com, moschleg@erols.com,
schlegel@rmc1.crocker.com, Sdudley6@aol.com
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: James Sensenbrenner iss statements
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:42 EDT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_908248123_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248123@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
FYI
--part0_908248123_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248123@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by
air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998 15:52:33
-0400
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id PAA28865 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07940
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id OAA07933
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00130831; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:53:33 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:50:43 -0500
Message-ID: <00130831.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: James Sensenbrenner iss statements
To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
NASA Watch
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Science
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman
George E. Brown, Jr., California, Ranking Democrat
www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm
October 7, 1998
Press Contacts: Jennifer Siciliano (Jennifer.Siciliano@mail.house.gov)
Mike Catanzaro (Michael.Catanzaro@mail.house.gov) (202) 225-4275
SENSENBRENNER REBUKES ADMINISTRATION FOR SPACE STATION
FAILURES
The following statement was given by Science Committee Chairman F.
James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) at today's committee hearing on the
International Space Station:
At this Committee's first hearing in the 105th Congress, the
Administration asked us to support and fund the Interim Control
Module as an insurance policy against the possibility that the Russian
Service Module might be delayed past its April 1998 launch date.
That's right, I said the Service Module was supposed to be launched
six months ago.
We did what the Administration asked and supported the ICM.
Congress kept its part of the bargain.
But here we are again. The problem has not been fixed. Instead, it is
getting worse. Two years later and the American people are still
waiting for their Space Station. We are still waiting for the first
element launch. We are still waiting for the Service Module. We are
still waiting on the Russian government. And we are still waiting for a
plan from the President to solve these problems. But, instead of a
solution, the Administration is asking for a blank check. It wants to
keep throwing money at the Russians. $660 million more.
on top of the $472 million we paid Russia for access to Mir,
on top of the $210 million we paid Russia for the FGB,
on top of the tens of millions we're paying Russia for administrative
support,
on top of the $1.2 billion Russia has already cost the American
taxpayer by failing to honor its commitments and meet schedule.
What's worse is that the Administration does not have the courtesy or
the courage to be up front and honest with the American people about
the cost of this bailout. It won't put the $660 million bailout in writing.
Instead, all the White House will let NASA talk about is the tip of the
iceberg, $60 million that it wants to pay the Russians immediately.
Why is that? I think it's because the White House does not want to
admit that its management of our relationship with Russia is
fundamentally flawed. The President promised me in writing in 1994
that we would not be dependent on the Russians to build the
International Space Station. The Administration's representatives from
the White House, the State Department, and NASA all came up here
and repeated that falsehood for years. And now the Administration
wants to stick the American taxpayer with the costs of its
mistakes?just to hide the fact that it made them. It is not a mere
coincidence that the Administration waited until the last and busiest
week of this Congress to propose this bailout.
The Administration aggressively lobbied Congress to support bringing
Russia into the program. For a while you couldn't walk down the halls
without tripping over someone from the White House or the State
Department trying to convince you of all of the benefits for starting
this partnership. But suddenly, when NASA has to pay the bill for
someone else's foreign policy and budgetary failures, the White House
and the State Department are nowhere to be seen. They refused to
testify at this hearing, although their decisions have brought us to this
point.
Worse still, the Administration is now lobbying the Senate to oppose
the NASA Authorization bill in order to escape accountability. A year
and a half ago this Committee adopted and the House of
Representatives passed a two-year authorization bill with an
amendment that Mr. Brown and I wrote. We directed the
Administration to create the contingency plan that it promised it
already had and tried to establish a decision tree that would have
helped prevent our current problems. The amendment also precluded
NASA from paying the Russians to do work they had already committed
to perform as partners. Now, when the Senate is considering similar
measures along with cost caps and timelines, NASA has pulled out all
the stops to prevent passage. In doing so, NASA is attempting to
thwart the desire of the American people to have accountability and
sound management in government. That's treading on dangerously
thin ice where I come from.
I cannot go along with NASA's request to start bailing out the Russian
space program. I've seen nothing since passage of the
Sensenbrenner-Brown amendment that would lead me to believe that
NASA, the White House, or the Russians would make good use of the
money. An appearance at today's hearing by the White House and
State Department would have at least sent a signal that they cared
about the program and wanted to work with us towards a solution.
That is why the Speaker and I sent letters to Mr. Talbott and Mr. Lew
asking them to reconsider their refusals to appear. We also stated
that we could not begin to consider supporting this initial $60 million
reallocation without their constructive participation in the process.
The plain truth is that the White House is addicted to the Russians.
I'm beginning to think it doesn't care whether the Space Station gets
built, so long as the Russians are happy. The problem is that our
relationship with the Russian space program is fundamentally flawed
and is hurting our national interest. What makes me particularly angry
is that all of the talent, the creativity, the energy, and the passion
that exist for space within NASA is being wasted in frantic efforts to
create ad-hoc, short-term bandaids that enable the White House to
indulge its addiction to Russia instead of being channeled into actually
building our Space Station and opening the space frontier. We need to
kick this habit. Congress has repeatedly offered a range of
suggestions, each of which the White House has summarily rejected.
The Administration is backing us into a corner and setting up a
confrontation that could undermine all of the good things our space
program has accomplished. I see only one way of avoiding it. The
Administration needs to take the Russian government out of the
critical path-now. Congress expected that four years ago and the
Administration promised we wouldn't become dependent on Russia. It
lied. Last April, the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force
recommended the immediate initiation of a U.S. propulsion capability.
On July 30th, NASA recommended that to the White House. Both
times, the White House said no. It prefers the long-term, hidden costs
of its dependence on Russia to the short term pain of biting the bullet
and doing the right thing.
Well, I do not. If we don't see some willingness to meet Congress in
the middle and some acceptance of reality from the White House soon,
then I plan to spend time working with the other members of this
Committee and drafting legislation for the next Congress that will put
an end to this problem, one way or the other. My colleagues and I may
find a way to do that and keep Russia in the program. We might not. I
would prefer to work with the Administration, but we cannot keep
waiting for leadership that may never come.
--###--
105-246
Return to NASA Watch
--part0_908248123_boundary--
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6389" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:09:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "192" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6389
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11598
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11592
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DHSa19215
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:12 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <acad491f.3622c458@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:09:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/11/98 8:26:52 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group
>
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/8/98 8:45:51 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Group,
>> >
>> >David Levine wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, let's say the definition is simple: a manned
>> >> mission that travels to the very closest star system, Proxima Centauri,
>> >> within the working lifetime of the crew (i.e. they are physically
>> >> capable crew when the mission starts and when the mission arrives). I
>> >> don't even care about the return trip just yet (we can get to that
>> >> next). Will it be possible or not?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Possible, yes. Happening, probably not. I seriously doubt we'll be
launching
>> >Outer Planet missions by then, let alone interstellar flights. Some
Orbital
>> >Cities might be up and running, while Mars colonisation might be starting
to
>> >pick up leading to terraforming tests. I'm being pessimistic, but given
the
>> >current state of space who can blame me?
>>
>> A lot depends on local space industry, tourism being the biggy. Space is
not
>> geting cheap enough technically so serious tourist and trans atmospheric
>> military missions are being considered. If that drive enough of a market
to
>> drop costs to orbit down by a factor of few hundred (doable with current
>> tech), then far more expansive space ops get reasonable.
>
>Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it
could
>get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten times
more
>they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses
CH4/LOX
>but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get Isp
~
>+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the
neighbours
>getting such technology, can we?
These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you don't
get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy story
echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators.
On the other hand their are some comercial reasearch programs that are
building and testing comercial launchers that could do similarly spectacular
cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a
market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to operate
a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then
technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide
launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty.
>With CH4/LOX the price could drop to ~ $150/lb. Even lower with the super-
fuel
>mixes. Other possibilities include air-augmented rocket engines or advanced
>scramjets, either of which could get the price down to ~ $30/kg. Then space
would
>really happen...
>
>>
>>
>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically
toxic
>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>
>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need it
just
>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in
diffusion.
>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found
roving
>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty
or
>clayey.
That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said
the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a super-
oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules.
>> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
>> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is
rusting
>>
>> >around the US.
>> >
>
>Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do with
the
>Shuttles and the old Saturns.
Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal.
>>
>> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
>> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
>>
>> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities.
Also
>> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I mean
it
>> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter ton
of
>> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
>
>Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced
magnetic
>materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and high-Tc
>super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy!
?! Fusion needs none of those.
>>
>> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
>
>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in
quantity
>-
>and no shielding stops them.
Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad.
>
>>
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>> >
>> >Pardon my ignorance but what's VASIMR?
>> >
>> >Adam
>
>Still asking guys!
>
>As for other bits of discussion I find it hard to imagine that alien
>biochemistries will be totally hostile/toxic and a real impediment to
>colonisation. Maybe. However toxins usually target certain hosts, and even
more
>so
>for pathogens. I think we take the "European diseases" analogy too far
because
>we're talking about disease transfer within a species on the one hand, and
disease
>transfer between different biochemistries on the other. Perhaps exobiological
>systems will use stereomolecules incompatible with ours, but beyond that I
doubt
>there'll be a lot of transfer. Molecular homologies do arise between widely
>different species, but these are yet to be documented as causing disease.
>
>If you want some idea of exobiological contact think of deep-sea fishing and
what
>they might dredge up. There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter -
>weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for
>centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of them
have proven very deadly.
>So I think the threat is overblown.
>
>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien
>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we
are
>to
>any exobiological entities.
Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats.
>Adam
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["19309" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "23:08:49" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "546" "starship-design: Fwd: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 19309
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11520
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11498
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZPIa02317;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:49 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8db9745.3622c441@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_908248129_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:08:49 EDT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_908248129_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248129@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
FYI
--part0_908248129_boundary
Content-ID: <0_908248129@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (rly-ya02.mail.aol.com [172.18.144.194])
by air-ya01.mail.aol.com (v50.18) with SMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 1998
16:06:36 -0400
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id QAA11969 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:06:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id PAA09922
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:06:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id PAA09903
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:06:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 001308C8; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:07:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:08:19 -0500
Message-ID: <001308C8.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: Judyth L. Twigg ISS statements
To: kellyst@aol.com, GEORGE_MICHNAVICH@udlp.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Prepared Statement on "The Administration’s Proposed Bail-Out for Russia"
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Science
October 7, 1998
Judyth L. Twigg
Assistant Professor
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
(804)828-8051
jtwigg@saturn.vcu.edu
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to
testify about
the International Space Station. You asked that I focus my testimony on the
state of the
Russian space program, the health of its aerospace industry, and its ability
to
meet its
obligations to the International Space Station program. I am testifying today
as
an
individual, representing no government or private agency. I am employed as a
full-time
member of the Political Science faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University.
My
interests
are simply as an observer of Russian politics and economics for the past 15
years, and
more specifically as a student of the Soviet and now Russian defense and
aerospace sector
for 10 of those 15 years.
Many Western observers and Russians alike have, for several years, warned of
the
imminent collapse of Russia's space operations. The faltering, and now clearly
failed,
post-Soviet reform effort has taken its toll. Attempts to create a stable
ruble
economy and
balance the government budget have resulted in dramatic cuts of resources to
the
space
sector, catastrophically affecting both industry and operations. The politics
of
democracy-building and industrial restructuring have held Russian space
institutions
captive to prevailing political winds, and to the uncertainties of reform
processes whose
only constant is their inconsistency.
The common wisdom regarding Russia's difficulties in space is that the issue
is
money. The
argument is this: their technical capability is intact, and if only the
Russian
government, or
someone else, were to provide full and reliable funding, then Russia could
rapidly resume
meeting its own national goals and its international obligations. But there is
ample evidence
that questions the validity of that assessment. It is more likely that the
events of the last
decade have produced degradation of both operational and industrial
capability,
to the
point that even a substantial infusion of new funding could not renew previous
levels of
activity in the short or medium term. In other words, money is a necessary,
but
not a
sufficient, short-term fix.
"Brain Drain"
This is true for two reasons. One is the departure of key scientific and
technical personnel,
better known as the "brain drain" problem. Employment in Russia's space sector
is down
by almost 50% from its peak in 1990. Delays in government funding for space
have
meant
that space institutes and enterprises routinely lay off most of their
remaining
employees
during the summer, rehiring those still interested and available after fall
financial
installments have been received. By this time, the youngest, most energetic
and
creative
members of the space industrial workforce have joined the more lucrative
commercial or
financial sectors, applying their talents to subjects far removed from space
and
decimating
aerospace research and design teams which took years to train and assemble.
The
senior
engineer who designed Russia's manned maneuvering unit, for example, is
driving
a cab.
One Russian report indicates that more than half of the research and design
personnel in
the aerospace sector are now over the age of 55; about a third are 45-55 years
old; and
only one percent are under the age of 35. Even those who remain often spend
only
a few
hours a day at the workplace before turning to second jobs, or to the constant
hunt for food
and supplies. Wages in the space production sector are only three-quarters of
the national
average. Vital intergenerational transfers of knowledge about space industry
and
operations are not systematically taking place.
Neglect of Infrastructure
The second reason that money cannot quickly solve Russia's problems is the
ongoing
decay of its material infrastructure. Russia has slashed its financing of the
aerospace
industry over the last decade. From 1990 to 1995 alone, Russian civilian space
programs
suffered government funding reductions of 80 percent, and military space
programs were
cut by 90 percent. In addition, the Russian government routinely does not give
final
approval to the current calendar year budget until mid-spring, which leaves
all
agencies,
including military and civilian space, forced to survive on a series of
month-by-month
handouts based on the previous year's allocations. Lower-tier subcontractors
are
most
affected by these payment delays, and many of them are now demanding payment
in
advance for delivery of goods, resulting in further production stoppages at
the
prime
contractor level. Furthermore, state funds can be unexpectedly diverted to
other
uses as
national emergencies arise; RSA's 1994-1995 budget reportedly suffered because
of the
need to pay for the war in Chechnya, and it is likely that money is currently
being
channeled toward politically charged payments of back wages to striking coal
miners and
other workers. Of course, these funding dynamics enormously complicate
attempts
at
long-term planning and investment.
The bulk of scarce government funding has gone to current operations likely to
attract
foreign cash, such as commercial launch activity. Funding for aerospace
programs
is
sufficiently tight and spasmodic that pipelines for research and procurement
have been
stretched out almost indefinitely for the few new projects that remain;
according to one
Russian source, strict funding priority has been assigned to "space systems
which can be
activated in the near future." This emphasis on current operating costs and
procurement of
hardware near the end of the pipeline is most certainly taking place at the
expense of
investment in infrastructure and research and development. The diversion of
scarce
resources toward current operations and away from long-term investments
carries
serious
long-term consequences. The cumulative impact of years of neglect has been a
severely
eroded research and development capability and a significant degradation of
physical plant.
Lack of Modernization Potential
These two factors -- the loss of key personnel, and the corrosion of important
infrastructure -- exacerbate another problem, the basic level of technological
sophistication
of the Russian space industry. Much of Russia's current exploration and use of
space is
made possible primarily by inertia carried over from the Soviet period,
although
there is
evidence that even those warehoused stockpiles of products, components, and
R&D
are
coming to an end. The Soviet aerospace industries were held captive to the
same
perverse
incentives that plagued the rest of the Soviet economy, incentives which
rewarded quantity
or gross output of production rather than quality, output assortment, or
technological
innovation. The haphazard process of Russian industrial reform has not enabled
the space
industry to overcome this Soviet legacy. As a result, modernization programs
which would
make Russia competitive with other space-faring nations are scarce and
frequently
unsuccessful.
Other Specific Causes of ISS Funding Delays
Many analysts, both Western and Russian, have speculated on other causes of
the
repeated funding crises and resultant delays in space station component
construction and
delivery. The most obvious is simply that the Russian economy has collapsed,
and
fulfilling
obligations to the space station project has not been, perhaps understandably,
a
consistently high priority. But a deeper and more nuanced look at the Russian
political
situation over the last several years, at both Russian domestic politics and
foreign policy,
provides a series of potential additional explanations. One is that the
Russian
government
has forced the delays intentionally, either as an expression of
dissatisfaction
or even
punishment over plans for NATO expansion, or as a tactic to delay the
abandonment of the
revenue-generating Mir. Another factor may be Russian political and industrial
culture,
which traditionally has not taken schedules and deadlines seriously. In the
words of one
anonymous source within the Russian space program, "The shuttle's late, every
major
program is late. That's the nature of the beast. I'm fascinated by this
preoccupation by the
American side on an exact date."
Russian public opinion has not always assigned the highest priority to
participation in the
station. Some Russian commentators have denounced Russia's involvement in the
project,
fearing that the country's domestic space infrastructure will suffer as a
result
and fretting
over the implied degradation of Russia's superpower status. Observing that,
unlike the Mir
follow-on which had been scheduled for lift-off in 1997, the international
station will not fly
over all of Russia's territory, Russian naysayers complain that the United
States is getting
the better part of Russian technology at bargain basement prices and that
valuable design
and production work is being taken away from Russia and assigned instead to
Western
contractors. One prominent Russian newspaper commentator recently complained,
"Russian know-how will save Americans at least $10 billion and three years,
but
the U.S.
will actually pay Russia only $400 million. Is it fair?" Another Russian
analyst
sounded the
same theme: "We get the impression that the United States would like to use
Russia as a
kind of cab driver. We put the American spacecraft into orbit, and then --
good
bye! They
are aiming to manufacture all the special-purpose high-tech equipment
themselves. If this
is how things turn out, there will be little left of our high-tech industry."
In
other words,
many Russian perceptions of the politics of the International Space Station
partnership are
quite different from those in the United States.
Finally, the politics of the Russian budgetary process itself are important.
The
situation
with Russian funding of its space station commitments is fundamentally
political
as much as
it is financial. The Ministry of Economics, which controls significant
government budget
disbursements for space, has in recent years has been vocally hostile toward
the
manned
space program, suggesting that there is "no coherent scientific program" for
Russia's
participation in the space station. This means that, without direct
intervention
directly from
the highest levels, the regular grind of the political process may continue to
result in
financial problems for space industry and operations.
It was precisely this kind of intervention, in the form of former Prime
Minister
Victor
Chernomyrdin and the force of the Gore-Chernomyrdin partnership, that gave
space
station funding the infusions it has received, prompt or delayed, over the
last
several
years. Now that Chernomyrdin is gone and two new governments have struggled
with
Russia's worst financial crisis since independence throughout the spring and
summer of
1998, the prospects for space funding are not bright. With the International
Monetary Fund
insisting that the state budget be tightened before it will disburse
desperately
needed
loans, major privatization deals for huge Russian natural resource
conglomerates
falling
through (depriving the budget of over a billion dollars in expected revenues),
and tax
collections throughout the country still falling far below expectations, belts
are being
tightened in Russia's budget sector more than ever before. This is likely to
translate into a
familiar pattern: scarce rubles for the space sector will be channeled into
projects with the
greatest promise for short-term revenue generation, a set of priorities which
is
unlikely to
include the International Space Station.
Future Prospects
The vast majority of the scientists and engineers remaining in the Russian
aerospace
sector are talented, creative, honest professionals. But they are trapped
within
an obsolete,
decaying infrastructure that leaves them little room to translate their
knowledge and
experience into innovative, functioning products. It would take years' worth
of
restored
political priority, resulting in full, consistent streams of funding, as well
as
a stable political
and economic business environment within which to operate, for Russian space
industry
once again to develop the capacity for activity it demonstrated during the
Soviet period.
Until that unlikely scenario takes place, Russian space operations will
continue
to be
plagued with the kind of accidents and mishaps that have become familiar over
the last
several years, and probably at an accelerating rate. Whatever activity
continues
will result
from the marketing of Russia's space capability to paying customers, most of
them
non-Russian, looking for a good deal on cheap technology and manpower. In
order
to
generate this desperately needed revenue, the Russian government will continue
to
allocate whatever scarce resources it can spare on space to current operations
for those
projects which demonstrate the best promise in attracting foreign cash.
Inertia
generated
by Soviet-era activity -- the inherited ground support infrastructure, the use
of accumulated
reserves, the availability of skilled labor at low wages -- may continue to
support this
marketing effort. But, in essence, Russia is very close to becoming nothing
but
a
contractor for other countries' space programs. Basic research and
development,
which
cannot be translated into an immediately saleable product, will continue to
suffer, as will
long-term investment and planning for whatever uniquely Russian priorities
exist
in the
realm of space. As this trend continues, it will become increasingly difficult
for Russia to
meets its obligations even to paying customers or to partners in international
cooperative
space endeavors.
Can this disaster be reversed? The answer to that question lies in an
examination of just
how far Russia has come since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clifford Gaddy
and Barry
Ickes have recently described the Russian economy not as a functioning or even
a
developing market, not as capitalist or socialist, but as a new type of
economy:
"virtual." It
earns this label because it is based almost entirely on illusion or pretense
about almost
every important parameter of economic activity – prices, sales, wages, taxes,
and budgets.
In this respect, it differs little from the practice of Soviet central
planning,
where prices
were ad-hoc constructs, functioning as artificial accounting tools after the
planners
allocated resources primarily in terms of material balances, and where
official
data on
production, inter-enterprise trade, and sales comprised a web of lies
disguising
widespread
barter, unfulfilled quotas, overproduction of shoddy, unusable goods, and
diversion of state
property. Major enterprises continue literally to subtract value as part of
their ongoing
industrial activity, acquiring inputs through barter and other forms of non-
cash
exchange,
hiring but not paying workers (at least not in cash), and churning out
worthless
end
products. This dynamic is sustained by a political process still unwilling to
tolerate the
sudden, dramatic leaps in unemployment that would result from the closing
and/or
genuine
restructuring of these industrial behemoths, and by direct and indirect
subsidies made
possible by those enterprises, mostly in the natural resources sector, which
genuinely do
produce value, including hard currency.
This "virtual" economy cannot exist side by side with a stable, developing
industrial
market – it will inevitably infect it. It provides ample opportunity for
rampant
corruption, as
recent experience has illustrated. And the Russian state cannot function
effectively if it
cannot find a way to tax a substantial part, if not a majority, of economic
exchange taking
place through barter. In other words, despite the gleaming new high-rise
office
towers and
apartment buildings altering the landscape of downtown Moscow, despite the
progress
implied by a newly functioning Russian stock market, despite the proliferation
of German
luxury cars and cell phones among Russia’s new class of elite young
businessmen
– despite
all of this, in important ways, Russia has not progressed very far at all
since
Mikhail
Gorbachev took his place on the world stage in 1985. Money alone is not the
solution.
Bailouts from the West may, in fact, serve only to prolong the agony before
Russia is
forced to face the real work of significant financial and industrial
restructuring.
The Russian space program does not exist in a vacuum. It depends on, indeed
stems from,
a wide variety of supporting elements in the society surrounding it:
education,
industry at
all levels, finance, and government. Until some rationality and stability is
achieved in some
or all of these areas, the trajectory of Russian space industry and operations
will continue
along its current path. And, unfortunately for Russia and for the rest of the
world, it
appears at though that rationality and stability will not be achieved in the
foreseeable
future.
In closing, I would like to say that I am an enthusiastic proponent of manned
space activity.
I very much hope that the International Space Station succeeds. I also very
much
hope that
the Russian reform effort succeeds. But there are many reasons to question
whether
NASA's current proposal to provide more money to Russia will further either of
these
goals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--part0_908248129_boundary--
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2943" "Mon" "12" "October" "1998" "21:33:07" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "59" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2943
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA06606
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA06597
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA27842
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA07306;
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
References: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that drive
> them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture, psychology,
> or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would be
> like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every
> century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make it up
> in volume.
Considering that you don't even demonstrate a basic understanding
of other cultures, Kelly, claiming that we know everything there
is to know about sociology is pretty arrogant. There can easily
be fundamentally new societies, cultures, psychologies, and
economics because we can barely model any of these things well,
and the models all have some very basic assumptions that will be
valid only in an Earthly environment. We don't have anything
as powerfully predictive of society as Newton's laws are
predictive of mechanics.
> In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that
> science
> >is
> >dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect by
> >trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We seem to
> >agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say the
> same
> >applies to all the sciences.
>
> Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn
> anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong.
> Neutons laws of gravity still work fine.
There are some implicit assumptions behind life on Earth that
won't be true in space.
For example, on the surface of the Earth the materials needed to
support life (oxygen, water, food) are basically laying around
ready for anyone to take and use. A self-sustaining biosphere
exists more or less independently of humans to renew these things
(although humans have been interfering more and more with that
ability).
In space, you have to bring or make everything you'll need for
life support -- air, water, and food. Any self-sustaining living
environment will require labor to make or import these
essentials; there won't be a self-sustaining environment that
makes these things for the people who live in it without lots of
work from them.
On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe,
because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to
maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having
to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make
all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce
some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that
society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models
that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't
produce a social organization different than what has existed in
history?
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["757" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "09:52:57" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 757
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA24236
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (d7kHKt99kRDCiuWTaySjRe6zSi6hC/ev@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA24228
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id JAA21386;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:52:57 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <002c01bdf3d8$51a07e40$c05931cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981013094833.21068B-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
cc: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Second Revision of Engine Specifications
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:52:57 +0200 (MET DST)
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
Lee
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch
manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Lee, do you really agree with any of that???
Face it, many of those things are stuff which only a small percentage of
human beeings have the potential to be really good at. In fact, I doubt if
_ANY_ human has the capacity to be good or even average at all of those
things...
/Bjorn
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["386" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:17:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 386
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14098
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA14091
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p213.gnt.com [204.49.89.213])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA17897;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:24:30 -0500
Message-ID: <004a01bdf6a3$714e4920$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <a8d4240b.3620eea8@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:17:27 -0500
Kelly,
> Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there
> any sooner,
> you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more
> during boost.
Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that fast
and would just get a ticket if you did.
Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum
speed, that why.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["569" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:17:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 569
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14117
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA14112
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 05:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p213.gnt.com [204.49.89.213])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA17892;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:24:27 -0500
Message-ID: <004901bdf6a3$6f2d8c00$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3620B14D.AE3A6E9B@ozemail.com.au>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Amanda & Adam Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:17:22 -0500
Adam,
VASIMR stands for something like VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetic Rocket.
I may have the exact acronym translation wrong but that is the import. It
use the equivalent of a super microwave tube to heat hydrogen to a plasma
which is then funneled out of a magnetic nozzle. Unlike most rocket engines,
this one can be "tuned" to deliver varying amounts of thrust. It is also
very powerful and efficient by today's standards. NASA says it could put a
crew around Mars in three months with this drive.
There are full performance figures available on the web.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["330" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:57:48" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 330
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19538
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA19467
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA21253;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:04:57 -0500
Message-ID: <004d01bdf6a9$1424bda0$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <7b48cdc2.3622c44e@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:57:48 -0500
> Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and
> antarctic buy euros,
> but thats did start a colony?
Geez Kelly,
What's the point? I forgot how this thread started already! I think I was
trying to point out that it wasn't necessary to go whole hog with a colony
at first, but I've forgotten where we started.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["668" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "07:57:40" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 668
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19443
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA19388
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p192.gnt.com [204.49.89.192])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA21246;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:04:53 -0500
Message-ID: <004c01bdf6a9$11dacda0$c05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2D8@mail.actionworld.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "David Levine" <david@playlink.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:57:40 -0500
> > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply
> > enough.
> > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of
> > launching
> > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to
> > think of a
> > way around.)
Make the lander in orbit out of waste products. It doesn't have to be
complicated or expensive. NASA has been testing these spiky balloon like
things for awhile and they work well. A two hundred dollar balloon lander
could put a few tons of ore on the surface every few minutes. Need to aim at
someplace large like Australia's Outback, Arizona's desert or the Sahara or
Gobi deserts...
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6742" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "15:52:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "166" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6742
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12599
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12378
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA14147; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:52:30 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:52:30 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > > No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
> > > and verified the energy output.
> > >
> > Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
> > balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
>
> ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps you should
> check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the data is there.
>
OK, I will.
But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware?
> > But we are discussing needs of an interstellar flight,
> > not a single ICAN spacecraft.
>
> True, but we have to start somewhere. You will note however that the AIMSTAR
> paper uses some of the results of the ICAN testing at JPL and includes a
> rather startling observation. ICAN assumed that the antimatter would be
> consumed each time by the reaction, actually, it was not. It took three or
> four cycles before it had to be replenished. It is only a catalyst remember.
Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine,
it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological
(& scientific) breakthroughs.
> > The current containers can store only picograms or even less
> > of antiprotons, have an astronomical mass ratio (container/antimatter),
> > and can store the antiprotons only for few days
> > (they slowly annihilate inside...).
> >
> > Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
> > without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
> > and technology.
>
> Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read.
>
But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can
contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web.
> ICAN and AIMSTAR don't need tons.
>
Interstellar ships will.
> An interstellar drive based on an outgrowth of AIMSTAR
> would only need a few grams, I don't see a problem.
>
No.
No outgrowth of AIMSTAR will have enough performance
for our starship mission purposes.
The necessary performance will require tons of antimatter
and efficient antimatter (not antimatter-catalysed) engine.
> > > (they drove around the U.S. with the
> > > storage container loaded with antimatter in the back, we're
> > > still here so I guess it worked.)
> > >
> > That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time
> > it will be possible...
> > Did they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
> > on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
>
> Well, it isn't really all that dangerous, even if the Penning Trap had
> failed, it would only have gotten a little hot, its not like it would have
> exploded or anything. Since it isn't an explosive, poison or hazardous
> waste, no permits are required.
>
Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained.
Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount
of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine
"only a little hot"?
> > You say it has performance good enough to put it into
> > a starship?
>
> VASIMR? Heck no. Its strictly interplanetary. Unlike the ACMF proposals it
> will never scale to interstellar. However, it uses several technologies
> which are crucial to enhancing the performance of later generation of ACMF
> or even true antimatter drives.
>
Ahh, but it is a long way to actual antimatter drives.
There even is not a viable design concept for a true antimatter engine...
> The fact that it is ready for flight
> testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted
> an example of a real working space drive, I provided one.
>
But it is still not "real working".
And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will.
Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible.
So we are back to square one, despite your example.
> > Seems to be a misunderstanding here.
> > I agree about start & self reinforcing, I even said explicitly
> > that prior experience is necessary. It was YOU who wrote
> > that building permanent habitats in space before building a starship
> > is "not necessarily" needed...
>
> Nope, I said it wasn't necessary to build a manned habitat to mine
> asteroids. Then promptly intimated that WE would prefer that they were
> manned because we need the experience working in space precisely because
> it was necessary in order to build a starship.
>
OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the <G> tag to
that your sentence?
> > Exactly. Almost.
> > I questioned that we may discover "a habitable planet" from Earth.
> > I am in no way against going to find out.
>
> Oh I think given a few more years we will be able to tell from here whether
> it has an Earthlike atmosphere or not - which doesn't necessarily mean that
> it is "habitable". Which is why I said the only way to find out is to go.
>
Agreed.
> > Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
> > (in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
> > for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
> > artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
>
> Well, I think most people, including the general public would agree with
> you there. I am just saying that it makes more sense to settle the system's
> asteroids, moons and other ore rich bodies first, but that is a whole
> different argument.
>
It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic
costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats.
You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger
demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you
want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid
instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity,
appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...).
I still think the balance is towards a planet,
at least with current technology.
It may change when the space/asteroid habitats
will be a common thing, with appropriate construction
and maintenace technology evolved into something familiar
and efficient (and possibly with gentic-engineered species
of humans to live in this environment).
> > I see that I must add a proper disclaimer:
> > ------------------------------------------
> > I am not such a die-hard pessimist, as some of you seem to think.
> > My point is that quite a lot of hard problems still remains unsolved
> > and needs much work to solve. Hence I think that easy optimism that
> > all is already essentially in place (as expressed in some posts lately)
> > may be quite unreasonable, generating too much self-confidence
> > where a call to arms seems more appropriate.
>
> I agree.
>
Good.
I think it is a basis for effective progress in any area -
not too much of an easy optimism.
Just enough to feel the thing is worth the effort...
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4532" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "16:24:27" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "117" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4532
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25411
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25366
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA14165; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:24:27 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131524.QAA14165@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:24:27 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> > It must of course start from building
> >> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some
> >> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for
> >> our own reasons <G>.
> >>
> >First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
> >automated without human supervision, and will not without
> >real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
>
> Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement.
>
Maybe not, but it will help significantly...
> >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
> >habitat in space", and rather large for that.
> >How to build one without any prior experience?
> >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
> >that going to another star?
>
> Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate
> and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be.
>
But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat
capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years
(which by today's standards is close to "permanent"),
in complete isolation from any help from outside.
We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space,
not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability
and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were
hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems).
I do not think one can build a starship from scratch
WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually
working in relative isolation for tens of years
(or at least several years).
Till now we have only a little experience with habitats
for several people that can work for several months
on near-earth orbit.
> Size and weight being real biggees. That fact we probably couldn't
> make it work being a better one.
> Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly
> self sufficent.
>
It depends on the time scale, I think.
[...]
> >True, but we should START going in the first place.
> >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
> >we made two steps back.
>
> Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs
> in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay
> for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have
> viciously defended.
>
You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
none is preserved (even rusted).
> >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
> >and not always ahead.
> >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
> >will build the necessary space infrastructure.
>
> Big agree.
>
Kelly, I start to worry - who will quarrel on the list
if we two start to agree on so many issues? ;-))
> >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
> >(for Sagan).
>
> Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space
> exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment
> to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine
> for robots and science probes.
>
That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space
exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his
other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus).
He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that,
but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them.
However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea"
of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly
USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration,
as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance.
He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead...
[...]
> >I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
> >around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
> >be either inhabitable, or deadly.
>
> Thanks.
>
Again, what with our quarrels? ;-)
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6283" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:12:34" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "155" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6283
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18776
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA18737
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14203; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:12:34 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131612.RAA14203@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:12:34 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology.
> >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather.
> >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to
> >> require none.
> >
> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
> >still wait for breaktroughs.
>
> We don't actually need sustained,
>
Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
may lead to a viable starship engine? I doubt it.
> and certainly thats not a major
> breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real
> applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline,
> but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive
> would get funding in the next few decades.
>
I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
> >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers -
> >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means
> >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it
> >highly impractical, if at all possible to build
> >and keep in operation for tens of years.
>
> Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of
> SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it.
>
I forgot the English equivalent of the Polisk proverb:
"Zamienil stryjek siekierke na kijek"...
It means roughly that you exchange one big problem
for another, possibly even bigger...
> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
> >of efficiency, but not only).
>
> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The
> power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't
> change much.
>
Just "dumped"? Into what "area"?
In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation
only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge
high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer
from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium)
into that huge radiating structure...
Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible.
> >The question of scale is important - for interstellar
> >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders
> >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now,
> >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work.
>
> Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs.
>
First, manufacturing ability means having an appropriate technology too.
Second, there are enginering, material strength, heat transfer, etc.
limits and thresholds that do not scale up indefinitely.
Because of that the aircraft-carrier engine is neither a magnified
Chevrolet engine nor some thousands of Chevrolet engines
linked together, but a completely new design.
Our technology has NO experience with size and power scales
needed for a starship systems. At these scales, quite new problems
will emerge, and thus corresponding completely different designs
will be needed - to be invented, built, and tested...
> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
>
> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
>
I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological
(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it,
provided we have the money.
> >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion...
> >
Let repeat the above once more...
> >> A big problem is the two are competitors.
> >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
> >>
> >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches.
>
> That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't
> think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems.
>
Not necessarily. E.g, on Mercury there is plenty
of solar power, but all hydrogen (or other fusion fuel)
is most likely to be completely absent.
It is the other way around near Jupiter...
> >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly):
> >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik).
> >And a technology advance sense too (mostly subordinated to political).
> >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts,
> >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo
> >was promptly wasted.
>
> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle",
> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
>
I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when
political reasons lead to great technological advances.
I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances...
> Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was
> avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable
> booster concept.
>
I wrote also about this in another letter.
Of course, since one of the biggest factors was time,
if something could have been done with existing technology,
it was - it is a safe and fast strategy (it is also
used in Zubrin's Mars Direct project - and justifiably).
Despite that, Apollo did lead to technology developments too.
> >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth
> >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar
> >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human
> >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its
> >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen,
> >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology
> >power step.
> >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years.
>
> Agreed.
>
You see, so even we CAN outperform your "historian from 1919".
I also think that that historian was smart enough too,
despite your doubts...
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 09:59:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3095" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:35:46" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "82" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3095
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00934
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00849
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14219; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:35:46 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131635.RAA14219@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:35:46 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >[...]
> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization
> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
> >>
> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
>
> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like
> Apollo wasn't the star of Maned use of space.
>
So what would you consider a start?
Building a viable starship from scratch?
> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
> >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will
> >> >be one-way...
> >>
> >> Not likely. ;)
> >>
> >Not likely what?
>
> That it will settle our perennial quarrel.
>
So I suspected. You are sinking my last hopes... ;-)
> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
> >> and abondon them there to die.
> >>
> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
> >to understand that!
> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
>
> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give
> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever
> after the missions over. ;)
>
I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
meets the acceptability criteria.
> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed
> >> on Earthly colonization projects.
> >>
> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
> >interplanetary-space society.
>
> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental
> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>
Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" -
hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward
interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.
That is not the question of "new laws".
Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
Not speaking about the fact that in those times
there even were no fashion shows in Paris...
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 10:10:12 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2788" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:53:15" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "72" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2788
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12000
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11982
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14239; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:53:15 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131653.RAA14239@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:53:15 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/9/98 11:59:39 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
> >>
> >> > As far as I know, still only on paper.
> >> > Did they produced some rocket exhaust generated by
> >> > actual fusion reaction?
> >>
> >> No, this is an engineering study. JPL has tested the reactions
> >> and verified the energy output.
> >>
> >Actually maintaining a sustained fusion reaction with positive energy
> >balance? It would be quite a media event, such an experiment!
>
> It wasn't sustained, and didn't actually interest the media much. Pulse laser
> fusion systems with positive energy balence got only short mention on tv in
> the '80's eaither.
>
Exactly. It wasn't sustained, and no way was proposed to make
it practical on realistic power levels. So it was only
a scientific experiment, not a technology proposal.
Nothing exciting for the media, nor for the starship-builders.
[...]
> >Scaling it up to tons of antimatter stored for tens of years
> >without loss will need quite a breaktrough in storage methods
> >and technology.
>
> Here we agree!
>
Again... Who I will be able to quarrel with? ;-))
> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will
> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
>
> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits.
> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too.
>
Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so
small that there is no real danger even when the container fails.
It will be another thing with larger amounts.
Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers
on highways is a proof that we can make and transport
antimatter in bulk...
[...]
> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
>
> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing
> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your
> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift
> costs are about nil.
>
Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["861" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:59:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "21" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 861
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12310
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA12300
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA14246; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:59:17 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131659.RAA14246@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:59:17 +0100 (MET)
> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>
> I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by
> industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be
> operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future.
>
> Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest
> customers might not be on the Earth.
>
I think that space mining will have rather little use
as a source of raw materials for Earth-bound industry.
99% of its output will be used by space infrastructure,
or by such places like the Moon, lacking some essential resources,
and much cheaper than Earth concerning transportation costs.
And there is a big bootstrap problem:
space mining is impractical without developed human
space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
is impossible without space mining...
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3109" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "18:03:35" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "76" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3109
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12579
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12558
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.57]
by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
id 0zT7oT-0004WJ-00; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:00:46 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com>
X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <acad491f.3622c458@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:03:35 +0100
>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically
>toxic
>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>>
>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs
need it
>just
>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in
>diffusion.
>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found
>roving
>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably salty
>or
>>clayey.
>
>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The said
>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a
super-
>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules.
I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were
"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide
whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests
succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the others..
>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
>>
>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in
>quantity
>>-
>>and no shielding stops them.
>
>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad.
And you can't shield against neutrinos anyway.
>>So I think the threat is overblown.
>>
>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly alien
>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we
>are
>>to
>>any exobiological entities.
>
>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats.
The most devestating diseases known (almost without exception) all come
from other creatures - eg, AIDs from monkeys, possibly CJD from sheep (then
to cows).
Obviously, the reason they are so deadly is that our bodies have never
encountered them before, so the immune system doesn't realise, or can't
stop the new virii/bacteria.
The question is, how alien would you expect these virii to be - it's
possible that they are too alien to affect us in the slightest, and it is
also technically possible that they might be almsot exactly the same as
some we encounter now, so our body can deal with them... However, far more
likely that they will be partly alien, but also partly familiar.
It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is
why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases,
which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy.
The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come
from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new
hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the
alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood
cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for us.
And considering we can't stop earth-born virii, or some bacteria, the
chances of us being able to develop and deploy a vaccine or cure for these
alien diseases are slim to none.
Andrew West.
From VM Tue Oct 13 10:15:35 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1031" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:28:16" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "22" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1031
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12556
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12537
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.57]
by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
id 0zT7oX-0004WJ-00; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:00:49 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013172816.007b4100@mail.u-net.com>
X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org>
References: <83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
<83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to
push against
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:28:16 +0100
>On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe,
>because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to
>maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having
>to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make
>all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce
>some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that
>society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models
>that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't
>produce a social organization different than what has existed in
>history?
You could consider a water empire as a parallel to this, where the
gorvernment controls all supply to water, so effectively controls who lives
and who dies - if there were some riots in a part of town, simply cut off
the water supply, and they'll all go away and die.
But asides from being picky, I think you're right, there are always things
we dont' consider, so you can't safely rule new economic/sociological
conditions.
Andrew West
From VM Tue Oct 13 10:54:09 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["681" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "13:32:10" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 681
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09530
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09521
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG33L9>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:32:15 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2E4@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:32:10 -0400
> ----------
> From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 12:59 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> And there is a big bootstrap problem:
> space mining is impractical without developed human
> space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
> is impossible without space mining...
>
And that's where space-tourism comes in.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Tue Oct 13 11:49:13 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1360" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:30:08" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1360
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12427
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA12402
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA14314; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:30:08 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810131830.TAA14314@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:30:08 +0100 (MET)
> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>
> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> >
> > And there is a big bootstrap problem:
> > space mining is impractical without developed human
> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
> > is impossible without space mining...
> >
> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
>
Or something other we may not yet foresee.
Usually sooner or later something surfaces.
Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because
it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon)
until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration
make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder
than trip to low orbit today.
Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars,
even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in
this direction. Necessity to sustain people there
for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion
systems and other advanced technologies, opening
this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining
assessment missions.
I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS
(which in current situation seems only a complicated
way of transferring funds to Russian mafia),
leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies,
(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-)
and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors
like the Mars Base.
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 13 14:30:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["335" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "23:09:03" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "8" "" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 335
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05103
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05031
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem679.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.167])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA17619
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:10:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013230903.006a4654@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013172816.007b4100@mail.u-net.com>
References: <13858.55299.413719.716248@localhost.efn.org>
<83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
<83536781.3622c453@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:09:03 +0100
>You could consider a water empire as a parallel to this, where the
>gorvernment controls all supply to water, so effectively controls who lives
>and who dies - if there were some riots in a part of town, simply cut off
>the water supply, and they'll all go away and die.
Talk about an incentive to search for a new Earth... ;)
Tim
From VM Tue Oct 13 14:30:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1057" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "23:04:28" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "23" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1057
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05118
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05000
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem679.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.167])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA17586
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com>
References: <acad491f.3622c458@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:04:28 +0100
Andrew wrote:
>It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is
>why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases,
>which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy.
Of course this balance has evolved over milions of years. On another planet
we are likely to be totally out of balance.
>The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come
>from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new
>hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the
>alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood
>cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for
us.
But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
Timothy
From VM Tue Oct 13 15:39:51 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1266" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1266
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14883
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14849
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15856
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:21 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdf6f7$ac7bee40$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199810131524.QAA14165@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:24 -0500
Kelly, Zenon et. al.,
> You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
> to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
> all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
> progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
> which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
> as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
> as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
> lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
> none is preserved (even rusted).
>
>
> > >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
> > >and not always ahead.
> > >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
> > >will build the necessary space infrastructure.
> >
> > Big agree.
Several years ago I read an article somewhere about how someone in the space
program had realized that we were reinventing the wheel. It seems that a lot
of the small things were getting reinvented again and again because there
was no database of designs that had been proven to work reliably. For
instance, if you needed a turbo pump, you designed a turbo pump instead of
getting one off of the shelf. Has anyone heard what became of his idea to
start such a technology database?
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 15:39:51 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["106" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:29" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 106
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14940
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14912
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15867;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:26 -0500
Message-ID: <000401bdf6f7$afa93960$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2E4@mail.actionworld.com>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "David Levine" <david@playlink.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:29 -0500
> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
The Japanese are already designing hotels in space...
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 15:41:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5520" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:07" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "116" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5520
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14886
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14850
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15843;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:14 -0500
Message-ID: <000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:07 -0500
Zenon,
> > ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance.
> Perhaps you should
> > check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week, ALL of the
> data is there.
> >
> OK, I will.
> But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware?
The team working on the original ACMF concept using ion drivers actually
performed some hardware experiments to provide enough data to confirm the
theoretical predictions. The AIMSTAR concept however, although based on the
data provided by the ACMF experiments, has not been tested in hardware as
far as I am aware. The predicted performance was obtained by study of the
original ACMF experiments.
> Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine,
> it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological
> (& scientific) breakthroughs.
But it is scalable, the current generation uses hydrogen, this technology
can be used with Lithium or Boron to achieve substantially higher ISPs.
Improvements in magnetic confinement technology may allow it to be boosted
even farther. As it stands right now, either of these drives turns the solar
system into our backyard and although not suitable for manned interstellar
travel, they could put a scientific package through Alpha Centauri in only a
few hundred years.
> > Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read.
> >
> But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can
> contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web.
Are we both talking about Penning traps?
> Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained.
> Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount
> of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine
> "only a little hot"?
If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a
match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although
your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a
tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow
your hand off...
To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather
loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be
quite deadly when properly utilized.
> > The fact that it is ready for flight
> > testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted
> > an example of a real working space drive, I provided one.
> >
> But it is still not "real working".
> And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will.
> Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible.
> So we are back to square one, despite your example.
Here we go again, if I build a widget in my garage and test it in my garage,
but don't actually put it in a widget machine, you mean to tell me it isn't
real? Come on, get a life. VASIMR is fired almost daily, if you don't think
it is a real working engine, let them test it in you living room next time!
I understand a little skepticism now and then, there are certainly enough
perpetual motion machines and cold fusion devices running around, but to
call a functioning rocket engine sitting in a laboratory in a college in
Texas not real is really pushing it!
I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I
specifically stated that it wasn't. It IS every bit as powerful as a fusion
engine, a lot easier to do, and working now. That is all I ever claimed it
was. This was all in response to your assertion that the technology was a
long way off. Maybe, maybe not. VASIMR is simply an example that the
technology may be closer than you think.
>
> OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the <G> tag to
> that your sentence?
The grin was to emphasize the point that even though I disagreed with the
statement about automation, I (and we) would personally rather they were
manned because we have our own agenda, it was not meant to make you think I
was speaking tongue in cheek! I believe that a lot more automation will be
possible than we are allowing for, but I personally don't believe in sending
robot probes to the stars. The whole point is that WE want to go, not our
electronic henchmen.
> It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic
> costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats.
> You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger
> demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you
> want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid
> instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity,
> appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...).
> I still think the balance is towards a planet,
> at least with current technology.
> It may change when the space/asteroid habitats
> will be a common thing, with appropriate construction
> and maintenance technology evolved into something familiar
> and efficient (and possibly with gentic-engineered species
> of humans to live in this environment).
I don't know. This is another of those areas where we can't tell because we
haven't done it yet and therefore have no comparison. At a guess, I would
speculate that it will be a net wash - it will not be a great deal more
profitable nor a great deal more expensive for either case. Mostly because
in order for the space portion to become possible, the rules have to change
enough that it mandates that the costs will be equal and any technological
improvements that make this possible will probably have off-setting benefits
to life on Earth that we haven't even thought of yet, so again, the costs
balance out.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 15:41:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1033" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:20:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1033
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14908
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14891
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA15863;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:24 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "A West" <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:20:27 -0500
> It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is
> why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases,
> which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy.
This statement only applies in the context of the environment that includes
the virus and its "host". It does not apply when an alien host that did not
evolve in that environment is introduced. The example of the American
Indians has already been introduced byt someone else, but I would like to
point out that it was only a trivial example of what is possible. The
pathogens that decimated the American Indians at least shared _some_
evolutionary background. A pathogen capable of infecting a human that shared
none of our evolutionary background might not even be recognized as
dangerous by our immune system, it might even think our immune system was
the tastiest part! Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just
don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too
frightening to contemplate.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 15:46:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["869" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "17:34:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 869
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24685
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24573
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA17671;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:34:26 -0500
Message-ID: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Timothy van der Linden" <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:34:30 -0500
Timothy,
> But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
> they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
> numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
> I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
> badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to
raise.
When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we exhale
our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets
species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and
viruses will be to THEM?
What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the
mere act of breathing?
No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 16:05:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1453" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "15:59:23" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1453
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13109
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13095
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08365
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA03440;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13859.56139.671835.70894@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker>
References: <199810131452.PAA14147@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
<000101bdf6f7$a2ba1120$2d5b31cc@lparker>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
L. Parker writes:
> > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained.
> > Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount
> > of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine
> > "only a little hot"?
>
> If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a
> match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although
> your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a
> tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow
> your hand off...
>
> To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather
> loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be
> quite deadly when properly utilized.
One million antiprotons are about (1/6.023*10^23)*10^6 grams of
mass; twice that mass converted to energy is about 3*10^-4
Joules. Admittedly that turns out to be a fair amount of hard
radiation (gamma rays plus pions and such) if you annihilate them
all at once; perhaps you could give someone cancer or radiation
poisoning if you direct them properly. But you'd need many
billions of antiprotons before you could blow anyone's hand off.
However, it does seem as if antiproton-catalyzed fusion will
require a fairly hefty supply of antiprotons. Neither does it
seem likely that you can generate enough antiprotons from the
energy released by fusion to have a self-sustaining system.
From VM Tue Oct 13 16:25:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1806" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:13:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1806
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22075
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA22064
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2WXQa22760
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <f135a88.3623de93@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:13:23 EDT
In a message dated 10/12/98 9:02:08 AM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 8:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>> >2005: Private companies offering sub-orbital space tourism.
>> >2010: Private companies offering orbital space tourism.
>> >2025: Private space stations, for tourism and experimental research
>> into
>> >materials and pharmeceuticals manufacturing.
>> >2040: Light private industry in orbit, first tourism on the moon,
>> >experimental private industry research into asteroid mining.
>> >2050: Medium private industry in orbit, early lunar tourism, first
>> >asteroid mining.
>>
>> Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply
>> enough.
>> I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of
>> launching
>> an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to
>> think of a
>> way around.)
>>
>>
>>
>I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by
>industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be
>operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future.
>
>Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest
>customers might not be on the Earth.
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine
Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long term
investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be
economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
colonization that would support something like our starship project.
Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has
droped a lot in the last decade.
Kelly
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 13 16:56:49 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1222" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:29:04" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "30" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1222
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09973
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09925
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3QSF>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:29:05 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2EC@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:29:04 -0400
> ----------
> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no
> long term
> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not
> be
> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major
> space
> colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>
> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in
> it has
> droped a lot in the last decade.
>
Well, it depends on your definition of long-term and short-term. There
have been companies in the past that have supported research with no
immediate or obvious financial gain.
Also, my timeline postulated the existence of zero-g manufacturing.
That, and a growing space infrastructure of private labs and tourist
facilities would be good customers.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Tue Oct 13 17:00:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2731" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "18:52:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2731
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15512
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA15435
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA26770;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:52:34 -0500
Message-ID: <000901bdf704$8bade080$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <13859.56139.671835.70894@tzadkiel.efn.org>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Steve VanDevender" <stevev@efn.org>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:52:32 -0500
Steve,
> One million antiprotons are about (1/6.023*10^23)*10^6 grams of
> mass; twice that mass converted to energy is about 3*10^-4
> Joules. Admittedly that turns out to be a fair amount of hard
> radiation (gamma rays plus pions and such) if you annihilate them
> all at once; perhaps you could give someone cancer or radiation
> poisoning if you direct them properly. But you'd need many
> billions of antiprotons before you could blow anyone's hand off.
>
> However, it does seem as if antiproton-catalyzed fusion will
> require a fairly hefty supply of antiprotons. Neither does it
> seem likely that you can generate enough antiprotons from the
> energy released by fusion to have a self-sustaining system.
Admittedly, it will take quite a bit more than what current Penning traps
hold to become "dangerous", you probably could dump them in your hand
without any significant effect. My intent was to illustrate by analogy that
the preceding statement was nonsense.
Antiproton catalyzed micro fusion is not self sustaining, it requires a
regular injection of fresh antiprotons every few cycles or so (which is
better than what we thought a year ago). It is, however, an over entropy
reaction, unless one considers the energy put into creating the antiprotons
in the first place, in which case it becomes the world's most expensive
battery...
However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine
could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the current
generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic.
Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry
converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities
somewhere off-planet (talk about a terrorist target). This scenario dodges
the entire question of self-sustaining over entropy fusion reactors, which
although they would be nice, aren't necessary.
The problem is, even with a thousand fold increase in power provided by
Lithium, Boron, etc. (which is stretching it), this will only meet the
lowest level engine specification I am currently proposing to the group -
which means a trip duration too long for human explorers. It can be
considered an interstellar drive, just not one we can use to meet our goals.
>From what I can see of the plans for the next twenty five years in space,
commercial enterprise will be firmly ensconced throughout near Earth space
by that time. We will already have acquired much of the experience I was
talking about and which most members of this list seem to agree is
necessary. That leaves us the next twenty five years to bring to maturity
the technologies required to transition from interplanetary to interstellar.
Lee
From VM Tue Oct 13 17:12:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["853" "Tue" "13" "October" "1998" "19:03:13" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 853
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22454
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA22429
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p276.gnt.com [204.49.91.36])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA27880;
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:13 -0500
Message-ID: <000a01bdf706$0a066e60$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <f135a88.3623de93@aol.com>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:03:13 -0500
Kelly,
> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be
> no long term
> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be
> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
> colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>
> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest
> in it has
> droped a lot in the last decade.
True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on
the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes
into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that
would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing,
tourism, etc.
As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
someone should add it to the web site?
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["658" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "04:01:08" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "13" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 658
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02907
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA02896
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (daishi) [195.102.195.90]
by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
id 0zTH8i-0000eK-00; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:58:16 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014040108.00908aa0@mail.u-net.com>
X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981013180335.007b18a0@mail.u-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:01:08 +0100
>The example of the American
>Indians has already been introduced byt someone else, but I would like to
>point out that it was only a trivial example of what is possible. The
>pathogens that decimated the American Indians at least shared _some_
>evolutionary background.
That was my point - a virus is far more likely to affect a biology with
which is shares _some_ eveloutionary background - I would consider it
highly unlikely that a completely alien biology would contain virii capable
of doing us much harm, but an alien biology which wasn't totally disimmilar
to our own would comtain considerably more virii capable of dealing us damage.
Andrew West
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1390" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "10:09:09" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "33" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1390
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA20135
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA20119
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09528 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:59:50 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810140859.JAA09528@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47FTG2ZA>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:08:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'"
<starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:09:09 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 5:59 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
>And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>space mining is impractical without developed human
>space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
>is impossible without space mining...
>
>-- Zenon
I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is
overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive" to launch that much
raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least.
Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet
those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial
outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a
starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe
very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further
facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of
infrastructure).
Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing and
able to:
(a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed
(b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns
which has been mentioned before on this list.
Chris Walker
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["821" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:57:40" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 821
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28399
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA28387
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem686.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.174])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09796
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:08:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014115740.0068da34@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <f135a88.3623de93@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:57:40 +0100
Kelly & Kelly wrote:
>Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long term
>investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be
>economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
>colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>
>Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has
>droped a lot in the last decade.
>
>Kelly
>
>Kelly
Your alter ego is surfacing ;))
Maybe a shortterm profit can be generated by selling exclusive rights of
mining the first few asteroids to those that will be there first. (This is
a probably a bit too easy, but I guess you catch my drift.) Right now space
is supposed to be from everybody, but clearly that doesn't work if
economical advantages are to be made.
Timothy
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1399" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:49:30" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "33" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1399
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28388
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA28381
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem686.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.174])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09762
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:08:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981014114930.0068e144@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:49:30 +0100
Hello Lee,
>You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to
>raise.
Indeed I was not yet concentrating on the survival of the original planet
biosphere.
>What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the
>mere act of breathing?
>
>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space.
Of course there may be something in between, we may be able to live on the
surface of a planet and use its resources, but inside a spacestation-like
habitat. And if we go outside we go in space suit equivalents. (Except that
we may not have to produce oxigen and don't have as much pressure or
heat/cold problems.) Our waste could be ionized or at least decomposed in
such a way that it would be completely harmless.
My guess is that *small* cross contaminations won't be hazardous, since it
is few against many and the few are in a foreign environment, so they will
be killed before they can give their genetic deviations by each
multiplication a chance. So rupturing a space suit may not be the end of
your live, nor the life on the planet, as long as you quickly do something
about it.
But of course, as long as we haven't experience with alien lifeforms, we
can't be sure. However since we will be wanting to study alien biotopes
from close by, I don't think it is that strange to "park" our spacelab
right next to them.
Timothy
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2111" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:18:56" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2111
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA02250
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA02234
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA13628 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:31:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810141031.LAA13628@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47KT155J>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:39:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:18:56 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L. Parker [SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 11:35 PM
> To: Timothy van der Linden
> Cc: Starship Design
> Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
>
>When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we
exhale
>our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets
>species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and
>viruses will be to THEM?
>
>What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by
the
>mere act of breathing?
What about the rule of "survival of the fittest"? OK, fair enough, it's
hardly desirable (from a morla point of view) for us to land on a planet and
kill off it's indigenous population (assuming that would actually happen).
However, if us humans have proven ourselves to be a "fit" species by
managing to evolve to a sufficient level where we can realise interstellar
travel and colonise other planets, then surely it's fair play if we can
survive on these other worlds. If their bacteria & virii kill US off, fair
play again - we weren't fit enough to adapt.
This then brings up the point in my mind genetic engineering - ie. if we can
produce (through GE) a human sub-species that can safely live on a new
planet, then that also demonstrates our fitness to adapt and survive.
Before you start thinking that I'm a heartless anti-environment kind of guy,
I'd like to make the distinction between the deliberate murder of species
(eg. whale-hunting) as opposed to indirectly (and only possibly) killing off
other micro-organisms with the bacteria that we happen to carry in our
bodies. A fine line indeed, though. I appreciate that just becuase it's
small (eg. virii) doesn't mean it doen't have the right to live, but all
life is a constant struggle to survive and compete with other life. Some
win, some lose.
>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in
space.
Perhaps a compromise solution would be to only land on dead planets where
our bacteria won't inadvertently kill off other life.
Chris Walker
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["691" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "07:04:01" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 691
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12987
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA12979
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p227.gnt.com [204.49.89.227])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA19065;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:04:24 -0500
Message-ID: <001301bdf76a$bc3dc240$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981014040108.00908aa0@mail.u-net.com>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "A West" <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:04:01 -0500
Andrew,
What you say seems logical at first glance, but...
> That was my point - a virus is far more likely to affect a biology with
> which is shares _some_ eveloutionary background - I would consider it
> highly unlikely that a completely alien biology would contain
> virii capable
> of doing us much harm, but an alien biology which wasn't totally
> disimmilar
> to our own would comtain considerably more virii capable of
> dealing us damage.
Unfortunately, there are absolutely no factst to support his argument. It is
all supposition and wishful thinking. Equally, there are no facts to support
the OTHER argument either. The point was, we don't know and can't hope to
guess.
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["513" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:41:46" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "18" "RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 513
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA27658
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (nKFP38F55o52c1tV4UNCTvjxZmHD+AV8@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA27651
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id PAA28227
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:41:47 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <000301bdf6f7$ae305500$2d5b31cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981014153717.27812A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
cc: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:41:46 +0200 (MET DST)
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just
> don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too
> frightening to contemplate.
>
> Lee
Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties,
always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown,
NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You
can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG
omelet...
/Bjorn
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["261" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:51:25" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 261
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA29718
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (CiDw7BXTNFpUwX5KXuxNifxfatdv7ilO@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA29668
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id PAA28874
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:51:25 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <000701bdf6f9$a47d3300$2d5b31cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981014154958.28729A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
cc: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:51:25 +0200 (MET DST)
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
>
> No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space.
>
> Lee
>
And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live"
terran planet the more I wanna go there...
/Bjorn
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["7184" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:35:27" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "162" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 7184
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04944
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA04928
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15346; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:35:27 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810141535.QAA15346@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:35:27 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > > ANY fusion explosion produces a positive energy balance. Perhaps
> > > you should check out the site for AIMSTAR I posted last week,
> > > ALL of the data is there.
> > >
> > OK, I will.
> > But did they test an actual micro-explosions in hardware?
>
> The team working on the original ACMF concept using ion drivers actually
> performed some hardware experiments to provide enough data to confirm the
> theoretical predictions. The AIMSTAR concept however, although based on the
> data provided by the ACMF experiments, has not been tested in hardware as
> far as I am aware. The predicted performance was obtained by study of the
> original ACMF experiments.
>
Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed.
> > Yes, and that supports my point - as it is not an antimatter engine,
> > it means the true antimatter engines still need substantial technological
> > (& scientific) breakthroughs.
>
> But it is scalable, the current generation uses hydrogen, this technology
> can be used with Lithium or Boron to achieve substantially higher ISPs.
> Improvements in magnetic confinement technology may allow it to be boosted
> even farther. As it stands right now, either of these drives turns the solar
> system into our backyard and although not suitable for manned interstellar
> travel,
>
Again, exactly my point.
So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-)
> they could put a scientific package through Alpha Centauri in only a
> few hundred years.
> > > Slowly, annihilate? Not according to the paper I read.
> > >
> > But they slowly annihilate. This is the reason they can
> > contain antiprotons only for several days. It is posted on the web.
>
> Are we both talking about Penning traps?
>
It seems so...
> > Only because of the very small amount of antimatter contained.
> > Do you thing you may propel the starship with the amount
> > of antimatter that when annihilated will make the engine
> > "only a little hot"?
>
> If you take common "flash powder" and put some in your hand and touch a
> match to it, it will flash burn, you will not be seriously injured although
> your hand may be scorched. If you take the same powder compress it into a
> tight package and light it with a suitable spark, it will quite neatly blow
> your hand off...
>
> To say that a few picograms of antimatter are not dangerous in a rather
> loose concentration in a Penning trap does not mean that they cannot be
> quite deadly when properly utilized.
>
You are right, of course, with flash powder.
But consider the question of scale -
the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off
is very tiny as compared with the difference
between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship...
> > > The fact that it is ready for flight
> > > testing was the only thing that was significant. Someone wanted
> > > an example of a real working space drive, I provided one.
> > >
> > But it is still not "real working".
> > And it is at most interplanetary when it eventually will.
> > Scaling it up to interstellar is certainly impossible.
> > So we are back to square one, despite your example.
>
> Here we go again, if I build a widget in my garage and test it in my garage,
> but don't actually put it in a widget machine, you mean to tell me it isn't
> real? Come on, get a life. VASIMR is fired almost daily, if you don't think
> it is a real working engine, let them test it in you living room next time!
>
I would rather not.
Since it is not tested enough, it may easily blow off! ;-)
> I understand a little skepticism now and then, there are certainly enough
> perpetual motion machines and cold fusion devices running around, but to
> call a functioning rocket engine sitting in a laboratory in a college in
> Texas not real is really pushing it!
>
Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form.
I meant "not real working space drive".
For me, it can be called "real working space drive"
only after being tested in space.
> I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I
> specifically stated that it wasn't.
>
I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology
ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very
beginning was specifically about starhip technology.
> It IS every bit as powerful as a fusion
> engine, a lot easier to do, and working now. That is all I ever claimed it
> was. This was all in response to your assertion that the technology was a
> long way off. Maybe, maybe not. VASIMR is simply an example that the
> technology may be closer than you think.
>
OK, OK, don't become too hot ;-))
I am not so die-hard pessimist (see my discalimer in some other letter),
I only want to have the FACTS right, not mixed with wishful thinking.
My doubts were about starship propulsion technology -
hence your examples, impressive as they may be, are simply off-topic...
> > OK, with that I agree. Then, why you added the <G> tag to
> > that your sentence?
>
> The grin was to emphasize the point that even though I disagreed with the
> statement about automation, I (and we) would personally rather they were
> manned because we have our own agenda, it was not meant to make you think I
> was speaking tongue in cheek! I believe that a lot more automation will be
> possible than we are allowing for, but I personally don't believe in sending
> robot probes to the stars. The whole point is that WE want to go, not our
> electronic henchmen.
>
OK, I agree. The grin disoriented me somewhat.
> > It would be very interesting to actually compare realistic
> > costs and technology needs to build both kinds of habitats.
> > You may have more ores handy in asteroids, but much larger
> > demand for them and for high-technology machinery if you
> > want to build the habitat on or near an asteroid
> > instead of on a planet (with atmosphere, gravity,
> > appropriate temperature & possibly oceans...).
> > I still think the balance is towards a planet,
> > at least with current technology.
> > It may change when the space/asteroid habitats
> > will be a common thing, with appropriate construction
> > and maintenance technology evolved into something familiar
> > and efficient (and possibly with genetic-engineered species
> > of humans to live in this environment).
>
> I don't know. This is another of those areas where we can't tell because we
> haven't done it yet and therefore have no comparison. At a guess, I would
> speculate that it will be a net wash - it will not be a great deal more
> profitable nor a great deal more expensive for either case. Mostly because
> in order for the space portion to become possible, the rules have to change
> enough that it mandates that the costs will be equal and any technological
> improvements that make this possible will probably have off-setting benefits
> to life on Earth that we haven't even thought of yet, so again, the costs
> balance out.
>
Possibly they do.
But an attempt to do a more precise comparison
would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more
precisely than our gueses and speculations here.
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1623" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:44:00" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "35" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1623
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09451
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA09442
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15404; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:44:00 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810141544.QAA15404@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:44:00 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
[...]
>
> However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine
> could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the current
> generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic.
> Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry
> converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities
> somewhere off-planet
>
See, Kelly, you have another niche for
the solar power generators in space!
[...]
> The problem is, even with a thousand fold increase in power provided by
> Lithium, Boron, etc. (which is stretching it), this will only meet the
> lowest level engine specification I am currently proposing to the group -
> which means a trip duration too long for human explorers. It can be
> considered an interstellar drive, just not one we can use to meet our goals.
>
Exactly. So my skepticism seems well-founded anyway.
> >From what I can see of the plans for the next twenty five years in space,
> commercial enterprise will be firmly ensconced throughout near Earth space
> by that time. We will already have acquired much of the experience I was
> talking about and which most members of this list seem to agree is
> necessary. That leaves us the next twenty five years to bring to maturity
> the technologies required to transition from interplanetary to interstellar.
>
Say, which technologies? Concerning propulsion, you explicitly
stated that the antimatter-catalyzed microfusion will not do.
Hence it is how I wrote - we still need some breaktroughs...
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["987" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:45:30" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 987
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10404
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA10343
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15409; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:45:30 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810141545.QAA15409@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:45:30 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long
> > term investments. Also without a large scale market, mining would not be
> > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
> > colonization that would support something like our starship project.
> >
> > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest
> > in it has droped a lot in the last decade.
>
> True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on
> the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes
> into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that
> would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing,
> tourism, etc.
>
> As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
> someone should add it to the web site?
>
Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 14 09:56:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1941" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "16:56:36" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "44" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1941
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15486
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15468
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15454; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:56:36 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810141556.QAA15454@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:56:36 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
>
> > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> >
> >And there is a big bootstrap problem:
> >space mining is impractical without developed human
> >space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
> >is impossible without space mining...
>
> I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is
> overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive"
>
"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense.
> to launch that much
> raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least.
> Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet
> those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial
> outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a
> starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe
> very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further
> facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of infrastructure).
>
> Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing
> and able to:
> (a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed
> (b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns
>
> which has been mentioned before on this list.
>
Exactly.
Just that I call the "big bootstrap problem" - big, because
in this case the initial investment may be much larger than
any needed before on Earth.
Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism,
will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller.
Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate
space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact
on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly
to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based
astronomers and radio-astronomers...).
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 14 10:14:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["174" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "09:05:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 174
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20517
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20507
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA02593
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p194.gnt.com [204.49.89.194])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA30021;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:05:58 -0500
Message-ID: <001501bdf77b$b955fbe0$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199810141031.LAA13628@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:05:38 -0500
Chris,
Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which
is more fit...
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 14 10:43:14 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6065" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "03:34:01" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "174" "Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6065
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA05617
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05594
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne1p33.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.97]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA18801 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:33:26 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:34:01 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: KellySt@aol.com <KellySt@aol.com>
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 13 October 1998 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
>>
>>Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it
>could
>>get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten
times
>more
>>they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses
>CH4/LOX
>>but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get
Isp
>~
>>+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the
>neighbours
>>getting such technology, can we?
>
>These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you
don't
>get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy
story
>echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators.
>
The Isps are legit. They're possible because of the tri-propellent approach
they use. But as you say they're un-necessary for cost-reductions in launch
costs. What's needed is a reusable vehicle/s with low overheads and lots of
business...
>On the other hand there are some commercial research programs that are
>building and testing commercial launchers that could do similarly
spectacular
>cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a
>market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to
operate
>a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then
>technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide
>launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty.
>>>
If only NASA had undertaken the Mars/Moon/LEO program in the 70s, and
half-a-trillion bucks hadn't been blown on Vietnam.
>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically
>toxic
>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>>
>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need
it
>just
>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in
>diffusion.
>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't
found
>roving
>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably
salty
>or
>>clayey.
>
>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The
said
>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a
super-
>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules.
>
Like I said there's no evidence for any such reactions. The guys who
research the cause of the those Viking results ultimately found no evidence
of super-oxides, especially since they're photochemically unstable.
>
>
>>> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
>>> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is
>rusting
>>>
>>> >around the US.
>>> >
>>
>>Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do
with
>the
>>Shuttles and the old Saturns.
>
>Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal.
>
Stephen actually researched it and you'd be surprised what's still possible.
I was expressing my frustration with the whole NASA approach.
>
>>>
>>> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
>>> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
>>>
>>> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities.
>Also
>>> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I
mean
>it
>>> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter
ton
>of
>>> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
>>
>>Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced
>magnetic
>>materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and
high-Tc
>>super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy!
>
> ?! Fusion needs none of those.
>
!? You sure? I've been watching fusion research fora while and that's the
kind of thing they're talking about. Really practical fusion needs to get
away from bulky magnetics and needs smart plasma control.
>
>>>
>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
>>
>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in
>quantity
>>-
>>and no shielding stops them.
>
>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad.
>
In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic
reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other?
>>There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter -
>>weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for
>>centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
>
>They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of
them
>have proven very deadly.
>
Such as? Though you may be right, I have trouble seeing just how. Some
people want to stop a Mars Sample Return on the basis that Mars might have
life. Personally I think the risk is lower than paranoia imagines.
>
>
>>So I think the threat is overblown.
>>
>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly
alien
>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we
>are
>>to
>>any exobiological entities.
>
>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats.
>
Typical. Always something I miss. If it's fruit "bats" they might still be
close[ish] relatives. Some say they're primates.
>
>>Adam
>
>Kelly
>
Adam
PS
Engine performance... if it's a fusion system we're talking about then most
studies say 0.1 g would be amazing, unless it's pulse using BIG bombs. High
Isp fusion usually involves low thrust levels and low accelerations. We're
talking 0.01 - 0.001 g, or worse. I think we might find ways of doing
better, but 0.25 g would be great. Higher is getting into the ridiculous.
Really high accelerations [+100 g] becomes possible with externally
propelled systems, NOT with fusion or antimatter drives.
Adam
From VM Wed Oct 14 10:43:14 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["401" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "18:30:50" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 401
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06302
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06282
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05967
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA15549; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:30:50 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810141730.SAA15549@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:30:50 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
> which is more fit...
>
That is quite possible.
Thus I would rather not count on that hope -
better work hard to become more fit.
And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early...
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 14 14:11:22 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1081" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:27:11" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "[Fwd: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again]" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1081
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24400
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24395
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-52.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.52])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27580
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3625253F.593F@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again]
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:27:11 -0700
Message-ID: <36252213.685E@sunherald.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:13:39 -0700
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Reply-To: stk@sunherald.infi.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
References: <3.0.1.32.19981013230428.0068d49c@pop.xs4all.nl> <3.0.1.32.19981014114930.0068e144@pop.xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Timothy van der Linden wrote:
> But of course, as long as we haven't experience with alien lifeforms, we
> can't be sure. However since we will be wanting to study alien biotopes
> from close by, I don't think it is that strange to "park" our spacelab
> right next to them.
Good point, Timothy. I agree with your approach; put a closed habitat on
the planet surface. You can't study the biosphere strictly from orbit.
Then, eventually, you might be able to determine whether it is safe for
you (or the biosphere) to breathe the atmosphere or not.
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Wed Oct 14 14:18:06 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["633" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:26:41" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 633
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19334
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19316
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24162
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OEMComputer (pm5-52.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.52])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14551
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <36252521.F77@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <001501bdf77b$b955fbe0$2d5b31cc@lparker>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:26:41 -0700
L. Parker wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which
> is more fit...
Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
nasty way.
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Wed Oct 14 16:01:37 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1128" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "15:54:27" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1128
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21716
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21574
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante24.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante24.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.74])
by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id PAA14260 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:28 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante24.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id PAA96986 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <36252521.F77@sunherald.infi.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810141546540.117790-100000@dante24.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer
in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization
even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the
galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion
required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same
evolutionary track.
Best Regards,
Nels Lindberg
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
> L. Parker wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which
> > is more fit...
>
> Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
> nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
> they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
> and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
>
> Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
> us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
> nasty way.
>
> Kyle R. Mcallister
>
From VM Wed Oct 14 17:40:01 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["271" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "19:29:39" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 271
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11407
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11342
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p288.gnt.com [204.49.91.48])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA00660;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:30:23 -0500
Message-ID: <001601bdf7d2$e5d0c860$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981014154958.28729A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Bjorn Nilsson" <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:29:39 -0500
Bjorn,
> And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live"
> terran planet the more I wanna go there...
I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some alien sea
while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly....
Lee
From VM Wed Oct 14 17:40:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["404" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "19:29:48" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 404
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11464
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11398
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p288.gnt.com [204.49.91.48])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA00676;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:30:29 -0500
Message-ID: <001701bdf7d2$eb498a20$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199810141545.QAA15409@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:29:48 -0500
> >
> > As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
> > someone should add it to the web site?
> >
> Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
>
One of the new people asked me about the site yesterday, I'm afraid I
couldn't tell him much. I lost the address in a system crash, and the last
time I went there most of the links were broken.
Kelly???
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1033" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "17:55:36" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1033
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27549
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA27520
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09303
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA08870;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13861.18441.28991.660812@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
References: <015101bdf798$d71047e0$61fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
AJ Crowl writes:
> In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic
> reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other?
Yeah, but those "sufficient numbers" are absolutely incredible
and nearly impossible to achieve except in drastic events like
supernova explosions.
I've seen estimates that the core collapse in a supernova
produces something like 10^51 neutrinos, which is enough to cook
a nearby planet merely from kinetic neutrino interactions (they
occasionally bounce off nuclei imparting some of their kinetic
energy, and much more rarely produce an inverse beta decay). If
you're near a supernova you probably wouldn't get to see the
beginning of the spectacular fireworks as a result. But there's
no conceivable fusion reactor that could produce enough neutrino
flux to be dangerous from its neutrino flux, no matter how close
you stand.
Even if you had something like Larry Niven's "reactionless"
neutrino thrusters you probably couldn't get radiation effects
from standing behind them.
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1781" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "20:23:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1781
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13805
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13782
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p307.gnt.com [204.49.91.67])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA06967;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:24:37 -0500
Message-ID: <001901bdf7da$77a6e740$2d5b31cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199810141535.QAA15346@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:23:50 -0500
Zenon,
> Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed.
Huh?
> Again, exactly my point.
> So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-)
I give up, its not worth the effort...
> > Are we both talking about Penning traps?
> It seems so...
No it doesn't, which is why I asked.
> You are right, of course, with flash powder.
> But consider the question of scale -
> the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off
> is very tiny as compared with the difference
> between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship...
No its not, you missed the point.
> Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form.
> I meant "not real working space drive".
> For me, it can be called "real working space drive"
> only after being tested in space.
>
> > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I
> > specifically stated that it wasn't.
> >
> I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology
> ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very
> beginning was specifically about starhip technology.
It is in fact good example. Nobody on this list thinks that there is a
workable stardrive already built and tested in space today and that was
neither the original question nor the point of this discussion. The question
was what is likely to be available in fifty years? ACMF, AIMSTAR and VASIMR
all show orders of magnitude improvement over what was state of the art only
a few years ago. As such they are perfect examples of what MAY be possible,
which is where we started.
> Possibly they do.
> But an attempt to do a more precise comparison
> would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more
> precisely than our gueses and speculations here.
Its been done.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1561" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1561
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03359
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03336
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZYRa04133
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:23 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <73138028.362562ef@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:23 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 5:38:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly, Zenon et. al.,
>
>
>
>> You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
>
>> to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
>
>> all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
>
>> progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
>
>> which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
>
>> as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
>
>> as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
>
>> lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
>
>> none is preserved (even rusted).
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> > >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
>
>> > >and not always ahead.
>
>> > >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
>
>> > >will build the necessary space infrastructure.
>
>> >
>
>> > Big agree.
>
>
>
>Several years ago I read an article somewhere about how someone in the space
>
>program had realized that we were reinventing the wheel. It seems that a lot
>
>of the small things were getting reinvented again and again because there
>
>was no database of designs that had been proven to work reliably. For
>
>instance, if you needed a turbo pump, you designed a turbo pump instead of
>
>getting one off of the shelf. Has anyone heard what became of his idea to
>
>start such a technology database?
>
>
>
>Lee
No, though there has been increasing interest in reusing old designs. On the
other hand lots of the old designs are really dated.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["942" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:26" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 942
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03223
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03194
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PSYa29185
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:26 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <88df4399.362562f2@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:26 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 8:08:44 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> > Plausable. The big problem is figuring out a way to land ore cheaply
>
>> > enough.
>
>> > I mean most ore goes for dime to dollars per pound, even the cost of
>
>> > launching
>
>> > an empty lander blows those costs. (An issue I'ld really like to
>
>> > think of a
>
>> > way around.)
>
>
>
>Make the lander in orbit out of waste products. It doesn't have to be
>
>complicated or expensive. NASA has been testing these spiky balloon like
>
>things for awhile and they work well. A two hundred dollar balloon lander
>
>could put a few tons of ore on the surface every few minutes. Need to aim at
>
>someplace large like Australia's Outback, Arizona's desert or the Sahara or
>
>Gobi deserts...
>
>
>
>Lee
spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably
build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back to market?
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1634" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1634
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03680
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03634
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2SXBa22057
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:42 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <14ff9eca.36256302@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:42 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 5:43:58 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Timothy,
>
>
>
>> But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
>
>> they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
>
>> numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
>
>> I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
>
>> badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
>
>
>
>You raise a very interesting point, but perhaps not one you intended to
>
>raise.
>
>
>
>When we land upon an alien planet with a breathable atmosphere and we exhale
>
>our very first breath, we have perhaps doomed thousands of that planets
>
>species to ultimate extinction. Who knows how predatory OUR bacteria and
>
>viruses will be to THEM?
>From our rotting corpse will spring forth benine earth flora and fauna to reak
our revenge on the leathal biosphere!!
Actually quite true, but of little comfort to the would be exploreres to know
his digetive simbiots are succesfully "TERAforming" a alien world.
>What right do we have to casually doom billions of creatures to death by the
>
>mere act of breathing?
>
>
>
>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space.
One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set foot
on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld
obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is
very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some
odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why?
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2115" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2115
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03619
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03517
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QCZa13873
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:34 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <de9135dd.362562fa@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>>
>> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
>> >
>> > And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>> > space mining is impractical without developed human
>> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
>> > is impossible without space mining...
>> >
>> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
>>
>Or something other we may not yet foresee.
>Usually sooner or later something surfaces.
>Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because
>it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon)
>until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration
>make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder
>than trip to low orbit today.
Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans
ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using space.
>Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars,
>even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in
>this direction. Necessity to sustain people there
>for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion
>systems and other advanced technologies, opening
>this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining
>assessment missions.
Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have
little significant impact. They have no reason to develop or use practical
systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political
reasons.
>I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS
>(which in current situation seems only a complicated
>way of transferring funds to Russian mafia),
Big agree!!
>leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies,
>(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-)
>and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors
>like the Mars Base.
At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself usefull,
but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching
and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration efforts.
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1679" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1679
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02475
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02456
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OHCa03785
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:29 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <daaa3860.362562f5@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:29 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 12:09:34 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>>
>> I'm assuming that early mining experiments would be performed by
>> industry already in orbit and that by 2050 space mining will still be
>> operating at a loss, with predictions for large profit in the future.
>>
>> Also, perhaps by the time space mining really takes off the biggest
>> customers might not be on the Earth.
>>
>I think that space mining will have rather little use
>as a source of raw materials for Earth-bound industry.
>99% of its output will be used by space infrastructure,
>or by such places like the Moon, lacking some essential resources,
>and much cheaper than Earth concerning transportation costs.
This is a big problem. Transport costs to space can come way down. If there
is no major demand for space mining materials, it would stay cheaper to just
ship up finished products, even heavy industrial products from Earth.
I'm hoping the extreamly rich and plentifull ores in space, the cheap power
for refineries and heavy industry, and the freedom from polution constraints,
and the possibility of exotic zero-g alloyies and materials like foamed
metals, will leverage up a space mining infastructure. If not, and if it
can't be shiped cheaply to Earth, space will see relativly little development.
>And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>space mining is impractical without developed human
>space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
>is impossible without space mining...
Exactly. And if things on that scale arnt being done in space, our starship
project if far far less likly.
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["7867" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:49:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "210" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 7867
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04441
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA04406
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ROEa02082
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:55 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <bfb2dd87.362562d3@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:55 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> breaktrough to me implies a fundamental jump in science or technology.
>> >> I would see where fusion or huge laser system would require eiather.
>> >> The fusion and microwave sail system I last sujested seems to
>> >> require none.
>> >
>> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
>> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
>> >still wait for breaktroughs.
>>
>> We don't actually need sustained,
>>
>Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
>may lead to a viable starship engine?
Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No
fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high
enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is
handelable.
>I doubt it.
Why?
>> and certainly thats not a major
>> breakthrough eiather way. Now the fact no one is doing any real
>> applied work in fusion is a major problem for our timeline,
>> but it seems fairly likly a fusino drive
>> would get funding in the next few decades.
>>
>I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
>but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
>seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
>experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
>into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser fusion systems
looked good. Natural since we never built a production copy this is
questionable, but for a 50 year timetable it seems reasonable. Its not like
I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
>> >Concerning lasers/masers, we are speaking of GIANT lasers -
>> >that is, teravats of power - with current solar cells it means
>> >tens or hundreds of kilometer arrays, which makes it
>> >highly impractical, if at all possible to build
>> >and keep in operation for tens of years.
>>
>> Thus my assumption of the nessisity of automated productino of thousands of
>> SSPS platforms. A ring of them around the sun at 1 AU should do it.
>>
>I forgot the English equivalent of the Polisk proverb:
>"Zamienil stryjek siekierke na kijek"...
>It means roughly that you exchange one big problem
>for another, possibly even bigger...
Could be true.
>> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
>> >of efficiency, but not only).
>>
>> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space after The
>> power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load in the area wouldn't
>> change much.
>>
>Just "dumped"? Into what "area"?
>In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation
>only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge
>high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer
>from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium)
>into that huge radiating structure...
>Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible.
Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs) scatterd over a
1 AU ring.
>> >The question of scale is important - for interstellar
>> >propulsion, scales of energy, size, mass, etc. are orders
>> >of magnitude larger than any tested by humanity till now,
>> >which really calls for breaktroughs to make it work.
>>
>> Manufacturing breakthroughs yes, but not science and tech breakthroughs.
>>
>First, manufacturing ability means having an appropriate technology too.
>Second, there are enginering, material strength, heat transfer, etc.
>limits and thresholds that do not scale up indefinitely.
>Because of that the aircraft-carrier engine is neither a magnified
>Chevrolet engine nor some thousands of Chevrolet engines
>linked together, but a completely new design.
In this case I'm not scaling up the systems being manufactured, just the
number of them being made.
>Our technology has NO experience with size and power scales
>needed for a starship systems. At these scales, quite new problems
>will emerge, and thus corresponding completely different designs
>will be needed - to be invented, built, and tested...
I'm avoiuding that be using vast numbers of more conventional scaled systems
in the emmiter ring.
Now the big fusion motors on the starship are an issue, but they should scale
up pretty well (its down thats a problem).
>> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
>> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
>> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
>>
>> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
>>
>I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological
>(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it,
>provided we have the money.
Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were crazy enough to
write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it.
>> >And a viable starship is even harder, in my opinion...
>> >
>Let repeat the above once more...
>
>
>> >> A big problem is the two are competitors.
>> >> So if fusion is developed, space solar would likely be abandoned.
>> >>
>> >Not necessarily. They may find different application niches.
>>
>> That seems unlikely. Space solar has enough disadvatages that I don't
>> think it could compete in a economy with fusion systems.
>>
>Not necessarily. E.g, on Mercury there is plenty
>of solar power, but all hydrogen (or other fusion fuel)
>is most likely to be completely absent.
>It is the other way around near Jupiter...
Fuel is light weight, and solar systems are a relyability and cost headach.
If you got fusino, you wouldn't bother with solar power in space unless you
just want bulk heat for melting stuff.
>> >No, it had a pretty good sense - that is, political (mostly):
>> >to show those Ruskies that we are better anyway (after the Sputnik).
>> >And a technology advance sense too (mostly subordinated to political).
>> >Unfortunately, by lack of determination and, let us say, simply guts,
>> >most of the technological & political thrust produced by Apollo
>> >was promptly wasted.
>>
>> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle",
>> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
>>
>I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when
>political reasons lead to great technological advances.
>I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances...
But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time.
>> Tech development was no a goal for Apollo. As a mater of fact it was
>> avioded as much as possible, hence the crude space capsule expendable
>> booster concept.
>>
>I wrote also about this in another letter.
>Of course, since one of the biggest factors was time,
>if something could have been done with existing technology,
>it was - it is a safe and fast strategy (it is also
>used in Zubrin's Mars Direct project - and justifiably).
>Despite that, Apollo did lead to technology developments too.
Reply in other letter.
>> >As, fortunately, I do not think that we will have United States of Earth
>> >within 50 years or so, the political sense for going interstellar
>> >may surface again. Especially with space/Mars/asteroids/etc. human
>> >colonies in place - either one/some of them will want to show its
>> >independence and advanced technological power to those dirty Earthmen,
>> >or Earth power(s) will want to be the first at this next technology
>> >power step.
>> >Though I am afraid it will take more than fifty years.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>You see, so even we CAN outperform your "historian from 1919".
>I also think that that historian was smart enough too,
>despite your doubts...
;)
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["678" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:20" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 678
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00310
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00290
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VGOQa02538;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:20 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <455fdef5.362562ec@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:20 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> Why would you want to boost more then 1g? It won't get you there
>
>> any sooner,
>
>> you just spend more time at coast and hurt you and the ship more
>
>> during boost.
>
>
>
>Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that fast
>
>and would just get a ticket if you did.
Not in my area of the country.
>Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum
>
>speed, that why.
What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra cost)
to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit.
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["763" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 763
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA02238
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02165
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VPDLa22759;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:44 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4c054da5.36256304@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:44 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 8:05:00 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> Ok, there were fishing and mining camps in the arctic and
>
>> antarctic buy euros,
>
>> but thats did start a colony?
>
>
>
>Geez Kelly,
>
>
>
>What's the point? I forgot how this thread started already! I think I was
>
>trying to point out that it wasn't necessary to go whole hog with a colony
>
>at first, but I've forgotten where we started.
>
>
>
>Lee
I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are started, without a
practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots of the US is
being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it.
This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we would go out and
found colonies just because.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3834" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "100" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3834
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03418
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03401
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XSZa19214
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:16 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <168f5901.362562e8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 12:03:54 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote:
>>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically
>>toxic
>>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>>>
>>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs
>need it
>>just
>>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in
>>diffusion.
>>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't found
>>roving
>>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
>>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably
salty
>>or
>>>clayey.
>>
>>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The
said
>>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a
>super-
>>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules.
>
>I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were
>"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide
>whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests
>succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the others..
The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food" samples,
and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and
photosynthetic life. But no organic mater. So after a lot of heated debate
they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically
reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic
mater. Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the organic
detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it. More fearce debate.---
>>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
>>>
>>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in
>>quantity
>>>-
>>>and no shielding stops them.
>>
>>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad.
>
>And you can't shield against neutrinos anyway.
True, but why bother trying?
>>>So I think the threat is overblown.
>>>
>>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly
alien
>>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we
>>are
>>>to
>>>any exobiological entities.
>>
>>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats.
>
>The most devestating diseases known (almost without exception) all come
>from other creatures - eg, AIDs from monkeys, possibly CJD from sheep (then
>to cows).
>
>Obviously, the reason they are so deadly is that our bodies have never
>encountered them before, so the immune system doesn't realise, or can't
>stop the new virii/bacteria.
>The question is, how alien would you expect these virii to be - it's
>possible that they are too alien to affect us in the slightest, and it is
>also technically possible that they might be almsot exactly the same as
>some we encounter now, so our body can deal with them... However, far more
>likely that they will be partly alien, but also partly familiar.
>
>It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is
>why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases,
>which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy.
>
>The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come
>from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new
>hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the
>alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood
>cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for
us.
>
>And considering we can't stop earth-born virii, or some bacteria, the
>chances of us being able to develop and deploy a vaccine or cure for these
>alien diseases are slim to none.
Generally agree.
>Andrew West.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4728" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:11" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "105" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4728
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA05901
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA05875;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 7YEDa02083;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:11 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu,
starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:11 EDT
In a message dated 10/12/98 11:37:17 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > No, we might come to understand more details about the mechanisms that
drive
> > them, but as for discovering a fundemental new "society, culture,
psychology,
> > or economics" that would seem pretty unlikely. At this point that would
be
> > like finding gravity didn't work the same on the 4th thursday of every
> > century, or you really could lose money on every item you sold, but make
it
>up
> > in volume.
>
>Considering that you don't even demonstrate a basic understanding
>of other cultures, Kelly, claiming that we know everything there
>is to know about sociology is pretty arrogant. There can easily
>be fundamentally new societies, cultures, psychologies, and
>economics because we can barely model any of these things well,
>and the models all have some very basic assumptions that will be
>valid only in an Earthly environment. We don't have anything
>as powerfully predictive of society as Newton's laws are
>predictive of mechanics.
economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply across
species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a
reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene work,
isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it
roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities like
music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator, democratic)
which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of
law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term (dictatortships
lack productivity to compete long term).
So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that
would alter things.
>
> > In a message dated 10/12/98 6:56:40 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > >Besides saying they won't find anything new is the same as saying that
> > science
> > >is
> > >dead, and that's a proposition we're all implicitly assuming is incorrect
by
> > >trying to limit our designs to what we can reasonably imagine now. We
seem
>to
> > >agree that we can't predict what might be possible by 2050, and I'd say
the
> > same
> > >applies to all the sciences.
> >
> > Not at all. There a difference between expecting science to never learn
> > anything new, and expecting to find everything known before was wrong.
> > Neutons laws of gravity still work fine.
>
>There are some implicit assumptions behind life on Earth that
>won't be true in space.
>
>For example, on the surface of the Earth the materials needed to
>support life (oxygen, water, food) are basically laying around
>ready for anyone to take and use. A self-sustaining biosphere
>exists more or less independently of humans to renew these things
>(although humans have been interfering more and more with that
>ability).
>
>In space, you have to bring or make everything you'll need for
>life support -- air, water, and food. Any self-sustaining living
>environment will require labor to make or import these
>essentials; there won't be a self-sustaining environment that
>makes these things for the people who live in it without lots of
>work from them.
Actually humans can't live without artificial work. Our food is grown in very
artificial eco-spheres that don't self propigate (farms). Our water is all
processed through artificial purification. Enough thats its ben argued that
it would save us trouble and expense to just close the water cycles of our
cities and recycle everything rather then dump and import new. Air is
partially artificial given our poplution problems. A space colony would be
more artificial then living in a city, but its a mater of degree not kind.
>On Earth, no one really questions anyone's right to breathe,
>because air is everywhere and nobody has to do any work to
>maintain it (although environmentally we are increasingly having
>to do work to keep from destroying it). When people have to make
>all the air everyone will need to breathe, won't this produce
>some very different economic, and hence social, pressures on that
>society? Exactly what existing human society do you think models
>that situation, and why? Why are you sure that this won't
>produce a social organization different than what has existed in
>history?
This is a little silly. You might sell bottled air at the docks, and maybe
add municiple air charges to the taxes. But people will be no more likely to
refuse someone the rigt to breath thier air then they will to walk on a public
street. Now vagrant may get exported just like they do from many cities. But
again thats not a fundemental change in any sence.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4752" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:49:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "124" "Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4752
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03494
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03467
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DHQa02316
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:47 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3260edcc.362562cb@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:49:47 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >[...]
>> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do
government
>> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring
civilization
>
>> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
>> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>> >>
>> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
>> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
>>
>> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like
>> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space.
>>
>So what would you consider a start?
>Building a viable starship from scratch?
What would I consider the start of manned use of space? Commercial craft
going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way. A
commercial, profitable, space station. The comsats are a far bigger step then
Apollo. So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying).
Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived.
>> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
>> >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will
>> >> >be one-way...
>> >>
>> >> Not likely. ;)
>> >>
>> >Not likely what?
>>
>> That it will settle our perennial quarrel.
>>
>So I suspected. You are sinking my last hopes... ;-)
Mawa ha ha!! Drowned biold hope on a spit... :)'
>> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> >> and abondon them there to die.
>> >>
>> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>> >to understand that!
>> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
>>
>> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give
>> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever
>> after the missions over. ;)
>>
>I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
>to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
>meets the acceptability criteria.
Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed.
As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer.
No, they don't count. You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on
camera for the ten secounds of fame. Its the criteria of those that fund, and
the society that supports it that counts. I don't know about over in your
area, but in the west its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for
a good cause.
>> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
>> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed
>> >> on Earthly colonization projects.
>> >>
>> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>> >interplanetary-space society.
>>
>> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental
>> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>>
>Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
>already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
>that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
>will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
>toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
>(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
>than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" -
>hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward
>interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.
I tend to be sispicious of that. Its assumed that just because people are in
space their society will be basically and radically different somehow. So
far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past
couple milenia. So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or -
not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any forceable future.
>That is not the question of "new laws".
>Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
>a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
>reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
>like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
>Not speaking about the fact that in those times
>there even were no fashion shows in Paris...
Oh, yeah. If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that
allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national
geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh
line, and not colonies.
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2152" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2152
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03524
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03473
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RHQa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:05 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1f350726.362562dd@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:05 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>>>======
>> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will
>> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
>> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
>>
>> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits.
>> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once in a while too.
>>
>Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so
>small that there is no real danger even when the container fails.
>It will be another thing with larger amounts.
>Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers
>on highways is a proof that we can make and transport
>antimatter in bulk...
Well yeah I can see the public geting a bit upset if we start creating and
storing tens of tons of anti particals in our starships Bose-Enstine condesit
tank. Especial if we do it in low Earth orbit. ;)
>[...]
>> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
>> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
>> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
>> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
>>
>> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing
>> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your
>> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift
>> costs are about nil.
>>
>Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
>to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
>suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
>resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
>resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
>radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
>appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space (water, ore, air
subcomponents) spining for grav isn't hard. Probably no real chance of
finding a planet with 1 g, right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air
anyway.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["262" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 262
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03212
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03186
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HDBa29193
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:38 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <22f20fda.362562fe@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:38 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 5:38:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
>
>
>
>The Japanese are already designing hotels in space...
>
>
>
>Lee
So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1576" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1576
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA04322
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA04263
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2UKRa02341
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:47 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <fe81c37b.36256307@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:47 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 4:16:40 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Andrew wrote:
>
>>It's clearly in the virus' worst interests to kill it's host off, which is
>>why most deadly virii or bateria are mutations of "nuisance" diseases,
>>which rarely killed, merely incapacitate/annoy.
>
>Of course this balance has evolved over milions of years. On another planet
>we are likely to be totally out of balance.
And the microbes will flare and whipe us out, bad for both them and us.
(We're just not good hosts.)
;)
>>The other sort of deadly virii are the sort I mentioned earlier, which come
>>from other creatures. These are badly adapted to living in their new
>>hosts, and some tend to cause massive damage because of this. So if the
>>alien diseases were -just- compatable enough (eg, used to living in blood
>>cells of a certain creature) then they would most probably prove fatal for
>us.
>
>But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
>they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
>numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
>I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
>badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of
simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as
agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however
only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far
simpler task.
>Timothy
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5923" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "22:50:00" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "155" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5923
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06626
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06589
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AARa02328
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:00 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <553f12fd.362562d8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:00 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 10:34:17 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> > It must of course start from building
>> >> > permanent human habitats in space and on other planets/moons.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily, these _could_ be automated or even teleoperated in some
>> >> cases. But admittedly, we would vastly prefer a human presence for
>> >> our own reasons <G>.
>> >>
>> >First, actual complex mines and factories cannot yet be fully
>> >automated without human supervision, and will not without
>> >real breakthroughs in AI and nanotechnology.
>>
>> Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement.
>>
>Maybe not, but it will help significantly...
..it will help significantly is the understatment of the century in regards to
Nano-tech. ;)
>> >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
>> >habitat in space", and rather large for that.
>> >How to build one without any prior experience?
>> >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
>> >that going to another star?
>>
>> Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate
>> and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be.
>>
>But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat
>capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years
>(which by today's standards is close to "permanent"),
>in complete isolation from any help from outside.
>We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space,
>not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability
>and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were
>hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems).
>I do not think one can build a starship from scratch
>WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually
>working in relative isolation for tens of years
>(or at least several years).
>Till now we have only a little experience with habitats
>for several people that can work for several months
>on near-earth orbit.
Leakage rates over decades are a big issue, but atmosphere and water recycling
aer much more straight forward. I agree that we wouldn't put together and
launch a star ship without building and testing the hab ring for a couple
years, but testing for decades wouldn't be nessisary. No more nessisary then
pre testing a bridge for decades before we build it and open it to the public.
>> Size and weight being real biggees. That fact we probably couldn't
>> make it work being a better one.
>> Frankly I don't think a full sized O'Niel could be completly
>> self sufficent.
>>
>It depends on the time scale, I think.
Not within the time scale of years.
>[...]
>> >True, but we should START going in the first place.
>> >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
>> >we made two steps back.
>>
>> Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs
>> in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay
>> for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have
>> viciously defended.
>>
>You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
>to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
>all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
>progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
>which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
>as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
>as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
>lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
>none is preserved (even rusted).
True the Sat-Vs were great heavy boosters for their day, but none could be
built and used today (even the tech to build the parts is long gone). So all
in all its pretty much a step that went no where, thou it did convince the
world we could go if we wanted. (But it convinced them it could only be done
at collosal cost).
>> >With current attitudes, it is not going, but crawling,
>> >and not always ahead.
>> >Say, Pathfinder was a nice toy, but no number of Pathfinders
>> >will build the necessary space infrastructure.
>>
>> Big agree.
>>
>Kelly, I start to worry - who will quarrel on the list
>if we two start to agree on so many issues? ;-))
'=( Ooo, good thought! ;)
>> >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
>> >(for Sagan).
>>
>> Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space
>> exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment
>> to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine
>> for robots and science probes.
>>
>That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space
>exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his
>other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus).
>He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that,
>but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them.
That is strange. He threw fits at space comercialization conferences, and
almost always argued against maned programs. I can't figure it.
>However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea"
>of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly
>USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration,
>as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance.
>He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead...
Really, I forwarded reports related to that, and I know folks in ISS were
never happy to have to add all te extra costs and hassel of adding Russia in.
>[...]
>> >I doubt seriously if we discover a habitable planet
>> >around another star. Kelly seems right here - it will
>> >be either inhabitable, or deadly.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>Again, what with our quarrels? ;-)
I'm sorry. :'(
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2398" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "20:43:39" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "50" "starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2398
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29210
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29176
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11447
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA09520;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13861.28523.637469.358322@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com>
References: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> economics is a science with understood laws and rules that
> even apply across species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't
> well researched, but is a reflection of the structure of our
> minds, which excluding extensive gene work, isn't likely to
> change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it
> roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring
> trivialities like music art etc falls into a couple major
> groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) which have existed for a
> few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of law
> based, probably democratic society will dominate long term
> (dictatortships lack productivity to compete long term).
Perhaps you've heard the saying "The first step to knowledge is
to know how much you don't know."
Economics can't make useful predictions; the models used in
economics are completely artificial and unrealistic. Psychology
can't make useful predictions either -- even if it is that
the human mind will remain unchanged in the future (very
doubtful, considering the increasing use of automated aids to
thought), psychology is nowhere near understanding how the mind
works.
As for social change, any society looks like any other as long as
you use a vague enough description. To say that a future society
will share aspects with historical ones is not the same as saying
that it will work exactly like any particular historical society.
> So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major
> changes that would alter things.
I think your inability to see such possibilities comes from your
lack of understanding, not to mention some apparently substantial
misunderstandings, of fields like economics, psychology, and
sociology.
> Actually humans can't live without artificial work.
This is only true recently, and only because there are more
humans on the planet than an unmaintained ecology can support.
In fact, many of our environmental problems stem from a
fundamental belief that things like air, water, and food just
sort of fall into our laps, ingrained from times when there were
less than a few million humans on the planet.
In space, you don't just have to work to prevent from destroying
the environment that sustains you; you have to create it from
scratch and be involved in every aspect of maintaining it, which
isn't the way things are on Earth.
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["922" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 922
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06111
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06094
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KJTa02083
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:19 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <211b9ff6.36257263@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:19 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 8:45:49 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just
>> don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too
>> frightening to contemplate.
>>
>> Lee
>
>Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties,
>always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown,
>NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You
>can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG
>omelet...
>
>
>/Bjorn
One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. If
they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If the
ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't
turned on.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1985" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:22" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1985
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06232
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06217
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XWPa19214
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:22 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <29672117.36257266@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:22 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 4:15:47 AM, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 5:59 PM
>> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
>> Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
>> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>>And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>>space mining is impractical without developed human
>>space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
>>is impossible without space mining...
>>
>>-- Zenon
>
>I see the point you're getting at, but surely the word "impossible" is
>overstating it? It would just be "very, very expensive" to launch that much
>raw material (for the space infrastructure) - in today's terms at least.
>Maybe in the future someone (private companies?) will be willing to meet
>those costs if they determine that the returns would outweigh the initial
>outlay. If a small mining facility can be set-up, it would provide a
>starting point for the infrastructure to then grow from space mining. Maybe
>very slowly at first, but as more raw materials were mined, further
>facilities could be built, etc (ie. exponential-type growth of
>infrastructure).
>
>Of course, I appreciate that it does all depend on a party being willing and
>able to:
>(a) spend large amounts of money on getting that first facility constructed
>(b) waiting long enough for positive cash returns
>
>which has been mentioned before on this list.
>
>Chris Walker
Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the
mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly
outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of seting it up, you
could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But by then the
mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the
masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a mine, that does
nothing but support itself.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["657" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 657
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06303
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06285
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2BPQa18750
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:25 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <7cbf7323.36257269@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:25 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 10:53:40 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>[...]
>>
>> However, I can easily believe that given fifty years, this sort of engine
>> could be using Lithium or Boron to produce much more thrust than the
current
>> generation under development with the added advantage of being aneutronic.
>> Antimatter production will probably be a purely space-based industry
>> converting solar energy into antimatter for storage in large quantities
>> somewhere off-planet
>>
>See, Kelly, you have another niche for
>the solar power generators in space!
NOt on my plants!!
;)
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1383" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:11" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1383
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06365
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06336
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NHHa02343
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:11 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <93fd9619.3625725b@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:11 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 6:47:35 PM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no
>> long term
>> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not
>> be
>> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major
>> space
>> colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>>
>> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in
>> it has
>> droped a lot in the last decade.
>>
>Well, it depends on your definition of long-term and short-term. There
>have been companies in the past that have supported research with no
>immediate or obvious financial gain.
True, the late bell labs was famed for that (and the stagering quantity of
Nobel prizes that policy aquired for it).
>
>Also, my timeline postulated the existence of zero-g manufacturing.
>That, and a growing space infrastructure of private labs and tourist
>facilities would be good customers.
Zero-G manufacturing is a good hook, and it might grow to a level that would
demand enough ore to start up a space mining industry - I hope.
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1409" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1409
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06419
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06390
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2SASa22057
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:41 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b9a9cd1f.36257279@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:41 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 5:13:27 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Kelly & Kelly wrote:
>
>>Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long
term
>>investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be
>>economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
>>colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>>
>>Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest in it has
>>droped a lot in the last decade.
>>
>>Kelly
>>
>>Kelly
>
>Your alter ego is surfacing ;))
I never told you I am clones? I was sure one of us remembered. ;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
>
>Maybe a shortterm profit can be generated by selling exclusive rights of
>mining the first few asteroids to those that will be there first. (This is
>a probably a bit too easy, but I guess you catch my drift.) Right now space
>is supposed to be from everybody, but clearly that doesn't work if
>economical advantages are to be made.
Exclusive rights might work, but only if their was a demand for the product.
I still think low cost transport down is the key. Earth is the eventual
market for whatever is made in space. Somehow we have to get product down to
market.
Assuming you had energy in electric form to power steam rockets to orbit. How
much power per pound launched wold it take to lift a cargo craft?
>Timothy
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1158" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "53" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1158
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06492
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06481
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VKRGa02539;
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:36 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3de79798.36257274@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:36 EDT
In a message dated 10/13/98 7:03:28 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be
>
>> no long term
>
>> investments. Also the without a large scale market, mining would not be
>
>> economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
>
>> colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>
>>
>
>> Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest
>
>> in it has
>
>> droped a lot in the last decade.
>
>
>
>True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on
>
>the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes
>
>into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that
>
>would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing,
>
>tourism, etc.
>
>
>
>As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
>
>someone should add it to the web site?
>
>
>
>Lee
You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space
Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the '80's when I
was still at JSC.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1181" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1181
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06771
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06749
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VLRa07909
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:38 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39757bee.36257276@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:38 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 10:54:30 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>> > Problem is unless there is some short term profit, there will be no long
>> > term investments. Also without a large scale market, mining would not be
>> > economical in space, and there be no economy to support the major space
>> > colonization that would support something like our starship project.
>> >
>> > Zero G manufacturing might havesupported such mines, but interest
>> > in it has droped a lot in the last decade.
>>
>> True, to a point. Read the Space Transportation Study, it is available on
>> the Web. (Plan on spending at least a weekend, it is pretty thick.) It goes
>> into detail regarding the viability of every conceivable use for space that
>> would increase usage of space lift, including mining, manufacturing,
>> tourism, etc.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
>> someone should add it to the web site?
>>
>Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
>
>-- Zenon
As far as I know no one is maintaining it. If I had access I'ld fix some of
the links.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["7852" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "385" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 7852
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06139
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06118
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OHHa02302
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:16 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <14ff9066.36257260@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs and Peformances
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:07 PM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: KellySt@aol.com <KellySt@aol.com>
>
>To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
>
>Date: Tuesday, 13 October 1998 13:23
>
>Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>
>>>Check out Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company for an idea of how cheap it
>
>>could
>
>>>get. They think they can build an orbiter for $1.5 million, and for ten
>
>times
>
>>more
>
>>>they think they can scale it up to a manned satellite launcher. Just uses
>
>>CH4/LOX
>
>>>but it just might happen. They have some other chemical engines that get
>
>Isp
>
>>~
>
>>>+600 s, but DoD wanted to slap a ban on their system - can't have the
>
>>neighbours
>
>>>getting such technology, can we?
>
>>
>
>>These guys sound like BS artists. Unless your talking airbreathing you
>
>don't
>
>>get 600s with chemistry. Also the "someone baned our tech" conspiracy
>
>story
>
>>echos old urban myths of 100mpg carburators.
>
>>
>
>The Isps are legit. They're possible because of the tri-propellent approach
>
>they use.
NO you can't get that much energy out of chemical reactions. Tri propelant
has been studies, and can save tank space, but not get you 600 isp!
>But as you say they're un-necessary for cost-reductions in launch
>
>costs. What's needed is a reusable vehicle/s with low overheads and lots of
>
>business...
Agreed
>
>>On the other hand there are some commercial research programs that are
>
>>building and testing commercial launchers that could do similarly
>
>spectacular
>
>>cost improvements (space Access' ejector ramjet prototype for example) IF a
>
>>market was large enough to support and operation with enough scale to
>
>operate
>
>>a system that cost effective. Market scale is vastly more important then
>
>>technology for low cost launch access. Current normal tech could provide
>
>>launch services for less than 1/100th current costs with little difficulty.
>
>>>>
>
>If only NASA had undertaken the Mars/Moon/LEO program in the 70s, and
>
>half-a-trillion bucks hadn't been blown on Vietnam.
They were interested, but no one else was. Apollo was a race with the
Russians, it was considered silly to keep racing after you won.
>>>> Oh, personally - I'm real dubious about Mars colonization. A chemically
>
>>toxic
>
>>>> planet with high rad and low G is not a great realestate value.
>
>>>
>
>>>Chemically toxic? You try living without CO2 for very long. Our lungs need
>
>it
>
>>just
>
>>>like they need O2 - we don't metabolise it, but it does play a role in
>
>>diffusion.
>
>>>As for the rest of Mars, AFAIK there's NOTHING toxic there that isn't
>
>found
>
>>roving
>
>>>about here. The soil isn't "super-oxidising" as some claim - that's
>
>>>thermodynamically and photochemically unlikely. Much of it is probably
>
>salty
>
>>or
>
>>>clayey.
>
>>
>
>>That wasn't the final judgement of the analysis of the Viking data. The
>
>said
>
>>the only explanation for the reactions with the soil samples would be a
>
>super-
>
>>oxidizing chemical reactino that breaks down organic molecules.
>
>>
>
>Like I said there's no evidence for any such reactions. The guys who
>
>research the cause of the those Viking results ultimately found no evidence
>
>of super-oxides, especially since they're photochemically unstable.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>>> >I'd really like to see Stephen Baxter's Saturn mission. See his book
>
>>>> >"Titan". It'd be a great way to use all that 1960s and 70s tech that is
>
>>rusting
>
>>>>
>
>>>> >around the US.
>
>>>> >
>
>>>
>
>>>Would still like to see it happen. Could think of a better thing to do
>
>with
>
>>the
>
>>>Shuttles and the old Saturns.
>
>>
>
>>Shuttles cant, Saturns are pretty much scrap metal.
>
>>
>
>Stephen actually researched it and you'd be surprised what's still possible.
Authours "Researching" such topics is a slippery term, and one often that is
used to cove much poetic lisence. ;)
>I was expressing my frustration with the whole NASA approach.
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Anti-matter would be great for Sol space travel in smallish
>
>>>> >quantities even. For IS flight, I'm not so sure.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Big problem is holding the stuff stables for years in major quantities.
>
>>Also
>
>>>> I'm not sure if we could hold enough of it in a light enough tank. I
>
>mean
>
>>it
>
>>>> would be silly to replace a thousand tons of fusion fuel for a quarter
>
>ton
>
>>of
>
>>>> anti-mater in a 3000 ton containment chamber.
>
>>>
>
>>>Come on! If we're gonna have fusion and mag-sails we'll need advanced
>
>>magnetic
>
>>>materials and field maintenance techniques - neural net control and
>
>high-Tc
>
>>>super-conductors. Else it's hopeless. With such antimatter will be easy!
>
>>
>
>> ?! Fusion needs none of those.
>
>>
>
>!? You sure? I've been watching fusion research fora while and that's the
>
>kind of thing they're talking about. Really practical fusion needs to get
>
>away from bulky magnetics and needs smart plasma control.
Thats the oppinion of the current DOE project team, not of many other academic
and commercial fusion researchers. In many cases the relyence on super
conductors in the designs was considered a critical failure, and one dooming
the desighns to gigantic and useless scales. Simple copper winding inside the
rad shields (superconductors don't like rad so then have to be kept way away
from the plasma) were sound to much more effective.
Assuming of course you use a magnetic compresion and confinement system,
personally I like Bussards voltage compresion systems. ;)
>>>>
>
>>>> Also the radiation levels are real bad.
>
>>>
>
>>>Neutrinos are the big worry. Who knows how much damage they can do in
>
>>quantity
>
>>>-
>
>>>and no shielding stops them.
>
>>
>
>>Neutrinos do virtually nothing. Nutron radiation is bad.
>
>>
>
>In sufficient numbers neutrinos are bad too. Assuming we use aneutronic
>
>reactions we can eliminate one, but what of the other?
Even the sun doesn't put out enough neutrinos to bother anyone.
>
>>>There's stuff in the deep that we've yet to encounter -
>
>>>weird microbes that we can't imagine - but we've been pulling up nets for
>
>>>centuries. Know of any pandemics from fish? From squid? No.
>
>>
>
>>They are far less alien then stuff from another star system, and many of
>
>them
>
>>have proven very deadly.
>
>>
>
>Such as? Though you may be right, I have trouble seeing just how. Some
>
>people want to stop a Mars Sample Return on the basis that Mars might have
>
>life. Personally I think the risk is lower than paranoia imagines.
But the stakes are very very high if your wrong.
>
>>>So I think the threat is overblown.
>
>>>
>
>>>Remember, Ebola's reservoir is monkeys [our relatives] not some wholly
>
>alien
>
>>>lifeform. And we are a lot closer to every lifeform on this planet than we
>
>>are
>
>>>to
>
>>>any exobiological entities.
>
>>
>
>>Actually the best guess is Ebola lives in Bats.
>
>>
>
>Typical. Always something I miss. If it's fruit "bats" they might still be
>
>close[ish] relatives. Some say they're primates.
>
>>
>
>>>Adam
>
>>
>
>>Kelly
>
>>
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>PS
>
>Engine performance... if it's a fusion system we're talking about then most
>
>studies say 0.1 g would be amazing, unless it's pulse using BIG bombs. High
>
>Isp fusion usually involves low thrust levels and low accelerations. We're
>
>talking 0.01 - 0.001 g, or worse. I think we might find ways of doing
>
>better, but 0.25 g would be great. Higher is getting into the ridiculous.
>
>
>
>Really high accelerations [+100 g] becomes possible with externally
>
>propelled systems, NOT with fusion or antimatter drives.
>
>
>
>Adam
The Bussard systems allow far higher thrust to weight ratios. See the web
site for details and refs.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1465" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1465
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06315
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06289
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QCRa18748
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:33 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <30a6181e.36257271@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:33 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer
>in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization
>even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the
>galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion
>required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same
>evolutionary track.
>Best Regards,
>Nels Lindberg
Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more
advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't know
how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes.
Kelly
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
>
>> L. Parker wrote:
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
>> > fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
which
>> > is more fit...
>>
>> Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
>> nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
>> they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
>> and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
>>
>> Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
>> us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
>> nasty way.
>>
>> Kyle R. Mcallister
>>
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["974" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:59:29" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "27" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 974
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA03146
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03140
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante15.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante15.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.41])
by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id XAA22390 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante15.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id XAA58728 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <30a6181e.36257271@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810142357240.108832-100000@dante15.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
> >I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer
> >in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization
> >even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the
> >galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion
> >required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same
> >evolutionary track.
> >Best Regards,
> >Nels Lindberg
>
> Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more
> advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't know
> how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes.
>
> Kelly
Could you please explain how modern physical theory predicts FTL?
I was under the impression that this was on the top of the list of things
Not Allowed
Best Regards
Nels
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["865" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:01:30" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 865
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17316
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (yj1XDAU6EQYgGQ9Xx8B0ioMjSJ+CAOs4@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA17264
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 01:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id KAA28859
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:01:30 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <001601bdf7d2$e5d0c860$2d5b31cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981015095628.28698A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
cc: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:01:30 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> Bjorn,
>
> > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling a "live"
> > terran planet the more I wanna go there...
>
> I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some alien sea
> while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly....
>
> Lee
Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was
certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other
people will, after all you can do a lot of research in a few days if you
know what you're looking for... Maybe if the first ones to go are willing
to make that sacrifice the ppl coming next can protect themselves.
/Bjorn
PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why
shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly
more worthwhile???
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2363" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "11:27:15" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2363
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA23756
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA23750
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA19257; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:16:04 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810151016.LAA19257@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHLB2K>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:24:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:27:15 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 4:57 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
>"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense.
OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when I
rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something really
cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible", due to the
expense, etc.
>Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism,
>will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller.
>Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate
>space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact
>on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly
>to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based
>astronomers and radio-astronomers...).
>
>-- Zenon
Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to
generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as the
satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat, and
the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms network
(for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company directors,
etc. It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an
Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of
interstellar travel.
In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the
investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will plough
its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may not
be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might
happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company decides
that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its lunar
hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this
though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, wouldn't it
simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial interests,
rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism, but
perhaps no investment that we can make use of.
Chris Walker
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2222" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "12:19:37" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2222
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29974
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA29960
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA21889 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:09:35 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810151109.MAA21889@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHLCBH>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:18:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:19:37 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 11:27 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
>
>>L. Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
> which
> >> is more fit...
>
I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES subscribe
to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved
to the point where they can travel between the stars. OK, so we don't know
what alien life is like, but I'm pretty sure that it has to fight to survive
and adapt in whatever environment it lives in - just like we do. Seems
likely to be a universal constant.
>Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
>nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
>they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
>and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
>
>Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
>us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
>nasty way.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said
"better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising
other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth).
To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life
when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid
doing so:
(a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like habitats
that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and
(b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets.
However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm
sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we
could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care
about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence
my "survival of the fittest" response.
Chris Walker
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2322" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:03:54" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "60" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2322
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05485
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (gShxJjlul9nzBCKfZpZWF4tTFqmLZxn+@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05478
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id OAA12407
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:03:54 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <211b9ff6.36257263@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981015133926.11103C-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:03:54 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/14/98 8:45:49 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but with alien microbes, ALL bet are off. We just
> >> don't know what may be possible, and the possibilities are just too
> >> frightening to contemplate.
> >>
> >> Lee
> >
> >Well, the road towards progress is flanked by millions of casualties,
> >always has been always will be... As for venturing into the unknown,
> >NOTHING should be soo frightening that it isn't tried at least once. You
> >can't make an omelet without breking any eggs, and this is a mighty BIG
> >omelet...
> >
> >
> >/Bjorn
>
> One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
> survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. If
> they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If the
> ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't
> turned on.
>
> Kelly
>
Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly
eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are
generally sound...
As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this:
Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in
10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew.
(I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals is it
not?)
Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they
would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station
and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be
around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at
least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the
mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would
be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the
scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their
remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could
live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating
new star system... I know which one I'd chose...
SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT
AGAIN!!!
/Bjorn
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["797" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:21:25" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 797
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16978
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA16867
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA16332; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:21:25 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151321.OAA16332@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:21:25 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>
> >Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that
> >fast and would just get a ticket if you did.
>
> Not in my area of the country.
>
> >Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum
> >speed, that why.
>
> What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra
> cost) to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit.
>
Kelly, it is the other way round: you are designing a ship for
optimal work at 1g (e.g., the best fuel efficiency, reliability, etc.).
And then - bingo - it appears that such designed ship
is capable to achieve 10g for some time
(albeit with less efficiency). OK?
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["487" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "14:25:46" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "19" "Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 487
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17266
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA17257
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA16338; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:25:46 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151325.OAA16338@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:25:46 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/14/98 10:54:30 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
> >>
> >> As a matter of fact, it is a pretty good primer for this group, maybe
> >> someone should add it to the web site?
> >>
> >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
> >
> As far as I know no one is maintaining it.
> If I had access I'ld fix some of the links.
>
Too bad. How come?
Dave?
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1321" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:08:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "38" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1321
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25172
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA25161
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16369; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:08:21 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151408.PAA16369@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:08:21 +0100 (MET)
> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
>
> > Bjorn,
> >
> > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling
> > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there...
> >
> > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some
> > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly...
>
> Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was
> certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other
> people will,
>
No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn.
He even once stated that it will be better to kill you
rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed...
> after all you can do a lot of research in a few days if you
> know what you're looking for... Maybe if the first ones to go are willing
> to make that sacrifice the ppl coming next can protect themselves.
>
> PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why
> shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly
> more worthwhile???
>
Again, because Kelly will stop you...
Maybe, instead of quarreling with Kelly again on this issue,
I finally can sit down comfortably in my computer chair
and watch you quarreling with him? ;-))
Good luck,
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2128" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:21:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "47" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2128
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27864
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA27798
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16382; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:21:03 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:21:03 +0100 (MET)
> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
[..]
> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen.
> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship.
> > If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam
> > isn't turned on.
> >
> Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly
> eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are
> generally sound...
>
Agreed - just another argument for one-way missions.
How come I did not used it during my past quarrels with Kelly?
> As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this:
>
> Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in
> 10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew.
> (I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals
> is it not?)
>
> Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they
> would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station
> and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be
> around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at
> least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the
> mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would
> be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the
> scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their
> remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could
> live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating
> new star system... I know which one I'd chose...
>
> SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
> I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
>
Exactly (some of) my points during my past quarrels with Kelly.
I even produced detailed time schedules for various types of missions.
However, he was then adamant on the issue.
Now, the stage is yours, Bjorn!
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2231" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:44:41" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "48" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2231
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08414
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA08398
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3R9N>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:44:41 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2F4@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'"
<starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:44:41 -0400
> ----------
> From: Walker, Chris[SMTP:Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 6:27 AM
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of
> the
> investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will
> plough
> its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or
> may not
> be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that
> might
> happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company
> decides
> that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its
> lunar
> hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does
> this
> though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again,
> wouldn't it
> simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial
> interests,
> rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space
> tourism, but
> perhaps no investment that we can make use of.
>
Well, its interests are likely to be financial. If a space tourism
company winds up with increasing demand, first for on-orbit facilities,
and then for lunar facilities, they may find developing space-based
mining (or other industries) economical. Then, when someone else comes
along and wants to build, say, an intra-solar-system vehicle
construction yard, the tourism company may find it in its economic
interest to sell the products of their mines to this company.
I'm not saying this is what will happen - just showing one possibility.
Granted, if you were this tourism company, you might not help other
tourism companies, but why not? If you don't sell to them, they'll get
their resources from Earth anyway, like you did originally. So sell to
them at a high enough cost to make a tidy profit but a low enough cost
to keep them from buying from Earth. There are current industries on
Earth where competitors sell each other products.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1813" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:38:46" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "39" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1813
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05900
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA05892
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG3R9G>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:38:47 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF2F3@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:38:46 -0400
> ----------
> From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> > >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
> > >
> > As far as I know no one is maintaining it.
> > If I had access I'ld fix some of the links.
> >
> Too bad. How come?
>
> Dave?
>
Unfortunately, it's my personal account on the machine and I don't have
the ability to create other accounts.
The amount of stuff on there is a bit much for anyone with a day job to
maintain. I've always felt that perhaps the best option would be for
everyone who wants to work on a part of the site to do it at one of the
free homepage places (Tripod, Geocities, etc.). Then we could use the
original site as more a kind of Table of Contents for all the other
subsites. A distributed system would be easier to maintain, because we
could each be responsible for a part of it. We would have to make sure
that the main site linked to the subsites and the subsites linked back
to the mainsite, but that would be easy. More difficult would be
maintaining any crosslinks between subsites - but definitely possible,
especially with the help of the mailing list. Anyway, we could each
take a topic that we're most interested in: i.e., links to official
documents, links to "advanced propulsion concepts", information on
historical starship research, information on topics like fusion,
fission, anti-matter, asteroid belt mining, space tourism, etc.
David
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt.
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4213" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:06:11" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "86" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4213
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA12960
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA12874
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16424; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:06:11 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151506.QAA16424@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:06:11 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
>
> > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> >
> >"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social sense.
>
> OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when I
> rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something really
> cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible",
> due to the expense, etc.
>
Granted, I should have been more precise.
> >Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism,
> >will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller.
> >Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate
> >space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact
> >on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly
> >to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based
> >astronomers and radio-astronomers...).
> >
> Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to
> generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as the
> satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat, and
> the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms network
> (for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company directors,
> etc.
>
Am I right sensing certain hostility to private industry
as expressed in your texts? I think them being private
and lining the pockets of their directors is not the issue here.
The issue is if their operation in space does forward building
interplanetary space infrastructure than can in turn facilitate
human settling of the system and possibly make us capable of building
a starship if we will seem it reasonable.
The pockets of their directors are not especially important here,
or rather, a possibility to line appropriately these pockets
is a necessary requirement for the industry to be able to exist
at all...
> It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an
> Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of
> interstellar travel.
>
Yes, that was my point, roughly - that the rather Earth-bound
"space" indusries, like commsats & the like, and possibly
space tourism too, may have little impact on building a space
infrastructure needed for eventual starship building
(but see the clarification below).
> In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the
> investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will plough
> its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may not
> be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might
> happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company decides
> that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its lunar
> hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this
> though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again, wouldn't it
> simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial interests,
> rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism, but
> perhaps no investment that we can make use of.
>
Some clarification seems necessary.
Namely, I do not postulate to build space infrastructure
just for the reason of preparing to build a starship.
I simply say that building a starship will not be possible
without prior building of such the infrastructure.
The infrastructure will be build for quite other purposes,
the main of which is to allow humans settling the system,
in space colonies and/or on other planets & moons.
Thus, I do not expect or demand from space tourism companies
to build starship shipyards, but only to put enough people
and structure in space so that starting space mines & industry
becomes cost effective, for them and for prospective miners.
Then it will be no question of *using* these industrial facilities
by "anyone else", but the question of paying in cash for their
products, which I think the owners will be quite eager to accept.
That can start the construction of the infrastructure,
provided the tourism companies can & will "grow to such an extent".
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2397" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:20:19" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "68" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2397
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18964
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18904
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16431; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:20:19 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151520.QAA16431@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:20:19 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed.
>
> Huh?
>
Huh? ;-)
> > Again, exactly my point.
> > So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues? ;-)
>
> I give up, its not worth the effort...
>
> > > Are we both talking about Penning traps?
>
> > It seems so...
>
> No it doesn't, which is why I asked.
>
> > You are right, of course, with flash powder.
> > But consider the question of scale -
> > the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off
> > is very tiny as compared with the difference
> > between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship...
>
> No its not, you missed the point.
>
Ehem, it certainly seems the time to stop this discussion,
as we seem to be in the state of total mutual misunderstanding...
> > Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form.
> > I meant "not real working space drive".
> > For me, it can be called "real working space drive"
> > only after being tested in space.
> >
> > > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I
> > > specifically stated that it wasn't.
> > >
> > I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology
> > ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very
> > beginning was specifically about starhip technology.
>
> It is in fact good example. Nobody on this list thinks that there is a
> workable stardrive already built and tested in space today and that was
> neither the original question nor the point of this discussion. The question
> was what is likely to be available in fifty years? ACMF, AIMSTAR and VASIMR
> all show orders of magnitude improvement over what was state of the art only
> a few years ago. As such they are perfect examples of what MAY be possible,
> which is where we started.
>
OK, granted. It is only the problem that for me the distance
between your examples (at the stage of their actual development,
i.e., say, 70% on paper) and the viable stardrive designs is of
some orders of magnitude larger than the distance
between today's space engines and these examples.
> > Possibly they do.
> > But an attempt to do a more precise comparison
> > would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more
> > precisely than our gueses and speculations here.
>
> Its been done.
>
Thanks - nice to hear. Any references?
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1593" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "16:33:18" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "34" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1593
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23464
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23380
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA04034 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:24:43 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810151524.QAA04034@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHLFQ5>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:33:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:33:18 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Levine [SMTP:david@playlink.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 3:45 PM
> To: 'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> Well, its interests are likely to be financial. If a space tourism
> company winds up with increasing demand, first for on-orbit facilities,
> and then for lunar facilities, they may find developing space-based
> mining (or other industries) economical. Then, when someone else comes
> along and wants to build, say, an intra-solar-system vehicle
> construction yard, the tourism company may find it in its economic
> interest to sell the products of their mines to this company.
>
> I'm not saying this is what will happen - just showing one possibility.
>
I am hoping this is what will happen. I think it's a reasonable possibility;
I just wanted to point out that industry in space may still not give us the
investment we wanted for insterstellar travel.
Granted, if you were this tourism company, you might not help other
tourism companies, but why not? If you don't sell to them, they'll
get
their resources from Earth anyway, like you did originally. So sell
to
them at a high enough cost to make a tidy profit but a low enough
cost
to keep them from buying from Earth. There are current industries
on
Earth where competitors sell each other products.
Agree. But will a tourism company sell enough of its product (ore) to our
starship company for us to build an interstellar craft? I don't know how
much material this endeavour is meant to require.
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:44:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5564" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:00:52" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "131" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5564
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA04879
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04858
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA05363; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:50:04 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810151550.QAA05363@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHLF82>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:58:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:00:52 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 4:06 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> > From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
> >
> > > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> > >
> > >"Impossible" not in the technical sense, but in the economic-social
> sense.
> >
> > OK - my misunderstanding! Although I must admit I'm being pedantic when
> I
> > rule out the word "impossible" - I prefer to use that if something
> really
> > cannot be done (physically). A better term would be "unfeasible",
> > due to the expense, etc.
> >
> Granted, I should have been more precise.
>
No worries :-)
> > >Unless some "intermediate industry", like space tourism,
> > >will pave some of the way, making the required investment smaller.
> > >Thou, I am not so sure - we have already tried other intermediate
> > >space industries - commsats, GPS - with rather little impact
> > >on serious space exploration (except contributing significantly
> > >to the growth of space debris around Earth and outraging Earth-based
> > >astronomers and radio-astronomers...).
> > >
> > Yes, agreed - the problem with things like commsats is that they tend to
> > generate money for industries that aren't really space-related, such as
> the
> > satellite TV and mobile phone companies. A company puts up a commsat,
> and
> > the revenue generated by its use is simply used to expand the comms
> network
> > (for example), not to mention lining the pockets of the company
> directors,
> > etc.
> >
> Am I right sensing certain hostility to private industry
> as expressed in your texts?
>
No! I am certainly not hostile to private industry. Rather, I feel that it
is much more likely to progress space industry than the government agencies
will, as the latter tend to be more bound by political (and public opinion)
constraints than a private company would be. As you allude to below, the
private sector is essentially financially driven, and doesn't have to rely
nearly so much on public opinion before it can do something useful. As long
as there is (muchos) money in doing something, it is more likely to get
done.
You can sense 'despondency' on my part towards government agencies ;-)
> I think them being private
> and lining the pockets of their directors is not the issue here.
> The issue is if their operation in space does forward building
> interplanetary space infrastructure than can in turn facilitate
> human settling of the system and possibly make us capable of building
> a starship if we will seem it reasonable.
> The pockets of their directors are not especially important here,
> or rather, a possibility to line appropriately these pockets
> is a necessary requirement for the industry to be able to exist
> at all...
>
Big agree! I can see why you thought I was hostile about this from my text,
though, after re-reading it. I simply meant it as an example of where the
money went, rather than as a rant at the private space industry (which I
myself work in).
> > It's just not channeled into space exploration at all, as it's an
> > Earth-bound commercial interest completely separate from the area of
> > interstellar travel.
> >
> Yes, that was my point, roughly - that the rather Earth-bound
> "space" indusries, like commsats & the like, and possibly
> space tourism too, may have little impact on building a space
> infrastructure needed for eventual starship building
> (but see the clarification below).
>
>
> > In this vein - why should space tourism necessarily provide some of the
> > investment for our space infrastructure? A space tourism company will
> plough
> > its revenue back into whatever serves *its* interests, which may or may
> not
> > be what *we're* interested in. I guess the only way in which that might
> > happen is if space tourism grows to such an extent that the company
> decides
> > that it is cheaper to mine asteroids for the materials to build its
> lunar
> > hotels than to ship these materials up from Earth. Even if it does this
> > though, would it allow anyone else to use its facilities? Again,
> wouldn't it
> > simply plough it resources back into serving its own commercial
> interests,
> > rather than our interstellar exploration ones? Et voila - space tourism,
> but
> > perhaps no investment that we can make use of.
> >
> Some clarification seems necessary.
>
> Namely, I do not postulate to build space infrastructure
> just for the reason of preparing to build a starship.
> I simply say that building a starship will not be possible
> without prior building of such the infrastructure.
>
> The infrastructure will be build for quite other purposes,
> the main of which is to allow humans settling the system,
> in space colonies and/or on other planets & moons.
> Thus, I do not expect or demand from space tourism companies
> to build starship shipyards, but only to put enough people
> and structure in space so that starting space mines & industry
> becomes cost effective, for them and for prospective miners.
> Then it will be no question of *using* these industrial facilities
> by "anyone else", but the question of paying in cash for their
> products, which I think the owners will be quite eager to accept.
> That can start the construction of the infrastructure,
> provided the tourism companies can & will "grow to such an extent".
>
> -- Zenon
>
OK - understood.
Chris Walker
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:47:28 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3873" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:35:18" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "103" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3873
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA23276
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA23265
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA16519; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:35:18 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151635.RAA16519@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:35:18 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
> >>
> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
> >> >still wait for breaktroughs.
> >>
> >> We don't actually need sustained,
> >>
> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
> >may lead to a viable starship engine?
>
> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No
> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high
> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is
> handelable.
>
> >I doubt it.
>
> Why?
>
Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro".
For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
>
> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser
> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built
> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable
> it seems reasonable. Its not like
> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
>
OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit.
[...]
> >> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
> >> >of efficiency, but not only).
> >>
> >> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space
> >> after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load
> >> in the area wouldn't change much.
> >>
> >Just "dumped"? Into what "area"?
> >In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation
> >only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge
> >high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer
> >from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium)
> >into that huge radiating structure...
> >Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible.
>
> Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs)
> scatterd over a 1 AU ring.
>
I know, I know, thousands of Chevrolets linked together...
[..]
> >> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
> >> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
> >> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
> >>
> >> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
> >>
> >I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological
> >(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it,
> >provided we have the money.
>
> Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were
> crazy enough to write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it.
>
No, kevlar + metal is not strong enough. Buckytubes are (barely).
I still do not see technological & manufacturing ability
to build it now, no matter how big check you can underwrite...
And the starship is much more hard to build, in my opinion.
> >> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle",
> >> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
> >>
> >I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when
> >political reasons lead to great technological advances.
> >I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances...
>
> But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time.
>
Huh? Possibly as concerns the particulars, but the rule
itself is well-known since some time...
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:54:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["574" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 574
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28456
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28440
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06406
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AXRa22052
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:28 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <22f2763e.3625726c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:28 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:26 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
>> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
>> which is more fit...
>>
>That is quite possible.
>Thus I would rather not count on that hope -
>better work hard to become more fit.
>And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early...
>
>-- Zenon
I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to all concerned.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 09:54:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["790" "Wed" "14" "October" "1998" "23:56:30" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 790
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28370
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28345
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06185
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2FLSa03785
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:30 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <232cf836.3625726e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:56:30 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 4:15:36 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:
>L. Parker wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
>> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species which
>> is more fit...
>
>Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
>nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
>they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
>and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
>
>Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
>us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
>nasty way.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;)
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 15 10:02:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2736" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "15:36:20" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2736
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02697
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02679
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA01915
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 07:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA16393; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:36:20 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151436.PAA16393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:36:20 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
>
> > From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net]
> >
> >>L. Parker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
> > >> which is more fit...
> >
> I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES subscribe
> to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved
> to the point where they can travel between the stars. OK, so we don't know
> what alien life is like, but I'm pretty sure that it has to fight to survive
> and adapt in whatever environment it lives in - just like we do. Seems
> likely to be a universal constant.
>
Exactly. I fully agree.
> >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
> >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
> >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
> >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
> >
> >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
> >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
> >nasty way.
> >
> Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said
> "better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising
> other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth).
>
Yes.
And for this reason I think we should not advertise our existence
(not speaking about our coordinates in space) before we are
firmly established in the whole system (and even then, better we shouldn't).
Hence I consider foolish the sending in the past strong signals
aimed at other stars, or including a plaque on Voyagers
with coordinates of the solar system. I hope that when technology
permits, these crafts will be catched in midflight
and taken back to Earth.
> To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life
> when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid
> doing so:
>
> (a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like
> habitats that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and
>
> (b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets.
>
> However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm
> sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we
> could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care
> about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence
> my "survival of the fittest" response.
>
Exactly.
Life is brutal, and the rule scales to interstellar distances too.
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 10:02:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2746" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "17:20:33" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "64" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2746
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03347
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03315
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15626
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA16510; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:33 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810151620.RAA16510@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:33 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
>
> > From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net]
> >
> >>L. Parker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> > >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
> > >> which is more fit...
> >
> I would make it a fairly safe bet that the rest of the galaxy DOES
> subscribe to the rule of survival of the fittest, otherwise they
> wouldn't have evolved to the point where they can travel between
> the stars. OK, so we don't know what alien life is like, but I'm
> pretty sure that it has to fight to survive and adapt in whatever
> environment it lives in - just like we do.
> Seems likely to be a universal constant.
>
Exactly. I fully agree.
> >Think about this the next time you step on an ant colony that has done
> >nothing to you. Picture yourself as the big type III civilization, and
> >they as humans. Now on the other hand, if the ants come into your house
> >and/or bite you, by all means get the raid ;)
> >
> >Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
> >us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
> >nasty way.
> >
> Let us hope by all means, but please let us not count on it. As Zenon said
> "better work hard to become more fit." In my mind that includes colonising
> other planets so as not to put all our egss in one basket (the Earth).
>
Yes.
And for this reason I think we should not advertise our existence
(not speaking about our coordinates in space) before we are
firmly established in the whole system (and even then, better we shouldn't).
Hence I consider foolish the sending in the past strong signals
aimed at other stars, or including a plaque on Voyagers
with coordinates of the solar system. I hope that when technology
permits, these crafts will be catched in midflight
and taken back to Earth.
> To go back to the earlier point about not inadvertantly dooming other life
> when we breath out our bacteria, I think that's reasonable if we can avoid
> doing so:
>
> (a) by just landing on dead planets, or using the spacestation-like
> habitats that Timothy van der Linden proposed, and
>
> (b) if we have the luxury of picking and choosing such planets.
>
> However, what if we need to get off Earth in a hurry (pick a disaster - I'm
> sure you've seen the films ;-) )? I think then that if the only planet we
> could reasonably get to just had rudimentary life on it, we wouldn't care
> about killing that off (inadvertantly or not) to save the human race. Hence
> my "survival of the fittest" response.
>
Exactly.
Life is brutal, and the rule scales to interstellar distances too.
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 15 10:10:08 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1258" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:02:36" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "25" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1258
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10664
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10629
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante25.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante25.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.99])
by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id KAA51838 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:38 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante25.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id KAA100062 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:38 -0700
In-Reply-To: <33210118.362562e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810150944340.56368-100000@dante25.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to
push against
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
A comment on yr post Kelly.
> economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply across
> species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a
> reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene work,
> isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it
> roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities like
> music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator, democratic)
> which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of
> law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term (dictatortships
> lack productivity to compete long term).
>
> So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that
> would alter things.
As for 'major changes that would alter things'. How about fiddling with
the human genome. There are several changes I'd like to see made (when/if
possible) and it seems that we are heading into a time of ever increasing
genetic manipulation. I know that current mores oppose this idea, but
those have a way of changing with the times too. In fact, i would
predict these changes being made before humanity truly becomes a
spacefaring race.
Nels
From VM Thu Oct 15 10:48:39 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1041" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "10:41:33" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "21" "starship-design: administrivia: no more \"administrivia\"" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1041
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10612
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10581;
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13862.13261.186331.848115@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: administrivia: no more "administrivia"
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
A recent thread in starship-design has contained the word
"subscribe" in the first paragraph. Unfortunately this has
triggered a feature in Majordomo (our mailing list management
software) called "administrivia" that causes such messages to be
bounced to the list owner on the assumption the message is a
subscription request. I've been approving these to the list as
I've seen them, but that often involves a few hours of delay
since I only usually read messages to this account during the
day.
Fortunately this feature is individually configurable in lists so
I've turned it off for starship-design.
Another feature I'd sort of like to disable is the automatic
prepending of "starship-design:" to message subjects. However,
some people like that feature. If there's no strong objection,
I'll disable the feature; if people really, really like it, I'll
leave things as they are. I'll wait until next week to decide,
so if you have an opinion, mail it to me (but NOT to the entire
list, please) and I'll take it into consideration.
From VM Thu Oct 15 13:31:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2340" "Thu" "15" "October" "1998" "20:45:38" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "48" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2340
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03941
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA03878
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem665.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.153])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA06066
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:48:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981015204538.0068e6b0@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <14ff9eca.36256302@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 20:45:38 +0100
Kelly,
A compilation of two letters:
>>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in space.
>
>One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set foot
>on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld
>obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is
>very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some
>odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why?
Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't
happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria.
And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens
that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not
just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would
hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's
atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the
spacesuit from becoming a balloon.
====================================================================
>>But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
>>they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
>>numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
>>I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
>>badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
>
>They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of
>simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as
>agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however
>only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far
>simpler task.
Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters
of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of
the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially
compensate for this thermal inconveniance.
Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding
for the bacteria or small organisms any easier.
In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can
cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the
body itself in response to the intruder.
Timothy
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["417" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 417
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01221
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01211
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16747;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:49 -0500
Message-ID: <000501bdf8f9$15247d60$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <211b9ff6.36257263@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:31 -0500
> One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
> survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence
> quarenteen. If
> they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the
> ship. If the
> ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't
> turned on.
>
> Kelly
Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... <G>
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1553" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1553
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01202
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01177
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16722;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:39 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdf8f9$0dce2200$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4c054da5.36256304@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:18 -0500
Kelly,
> I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are
> started, without a
> practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots
> of the US is
> being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it.
>
> This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we
> would go out and
> found colonies just because.
Ahh, okay. I understand now. And I was pointing out how colonies didn't just
"start", they began with fishing camps (an economic justification). Without
going into boring historical detail, we are both right, we're just not
talking about quite the same thing.
In fact, there were "causes" behind most of the colonies. I was just
pointing out that they were usually preceded by advanced scouts (the
fishermen in most cases, but not all) and were attempting to reach some
haven which they had been told was exceptionally attractive. Unfortunately,
many of them went off course and ended up settling somewhere besides where
they had originally intended, or their "causes" disappeared (frequently
political causes) and the colony subsequently foundered.
You were just taking exception to fishing camps being considered
colonies...which they weren't.
Incidentally, the ones that survived were mostly private ventures of one
variety or another and although they frequently had difficult times at the
beginning they mostly survived because conditions at their landing point
were close to ideal and their cause held up.
There may be lessons here for would be colonists of the planets and other
stars...
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["151" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:28" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 151
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01207
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01199
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16738;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:46 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdf8f9$13361ae0$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <22f20fda.362562fe@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:28 -0500
Kelly,
> So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac.
Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done...
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["564" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 564
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01200
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01185
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16732;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:44 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdf8f9$11e66960$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <88df4399.362562f2@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:26 -0500
Kelly,
> spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably
> build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back
> to market?
I don't really know. They (NASA) have tested them, although I don't think
the drop was from orbit, I think so far they have just tossed them from high
flying aircraft to evaluate their impact performance. Basically it was just
an inflatable balloon shaped like a caltrop or a child's jack, very similar
to what was used on Mars. Apparently it can soft land a rather large payload
very cheaply.
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["274" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 274
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01220
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01210
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16742;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <000401bdf8f9$141f9080$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3de79798.36257274@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:30 -0500
Kelly,
> You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space
> Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the
> '80's when I
> was still at JSC.
Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link. I will try to find it
this weekend.
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["236" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 236
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01269
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01263
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16764;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:52 -0500
Message-ID: <000701bdf8f9$1712dfe0$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981015095628.28698A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Bjorn Nilsson" <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:35 -0500
Bjorn,
> PS: Millions of ppl are sacrificed in wars at least once per century, why
> shouldn't we be prepared to sacrifice a few 1000's on something eternaly
> more worthwhile???
Its a "human thing" you wouldn't understand...<G>
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["582" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:33" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 582
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01264
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01257
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16755;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:51 -0500
Message-ID: <000601bdf8f9$160f79a0$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <29672117.36257266@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:33 -0500
Kelly,
> Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the
> mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly
> outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of
> seting it up, you
> could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But
> by then the
> mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the
> masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a
> mine, that does
> nothing but support itself.
The point at which it all becomes practical ia $100/lb to LEO.
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["486" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "06:35:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 486
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA01187
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA01179
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p224.gnt.com [204.49.89.224])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA16726;
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:37:42 -0500
Message-ID: <000101bdf8f9$10b0a880$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <14ff9eca.36256302@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:35:24 -0500
Kelly,
> One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien
> EVER set foot
> on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld
> obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff
> which all is
> very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were
> found in some
> odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why?
That one is almost as good as the one that alien nano machines are watching
our every move!
Lee
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["462" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:34:10" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "15" "starship-design: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 462
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17676
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA17659
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17252; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:34:10 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com
Subject: starship-design: Space Transportation Study
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:34:10 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > You might have included te web address? By the way, which "Space
> > Transportation Study"? I remember buy a copy of one back in the
> > '80's when I was still at JSC.
>
> Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link.
> I will try to find it this weekend.
>
Did you have in mind the
"Commercial Space Transportation Study" at:
http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html
?
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["258" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:35:33" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "9" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 258
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA17784
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA17769
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17258; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:35:33 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810161335.OAA17258@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:35:33 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac.
>
> Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done...
>
Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt?
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1128" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "14:50:49" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "26" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1128
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA20567
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA20552
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 06:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA17276; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:50:49 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810161350.OAA17276@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:50:49 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen.
> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the
> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean,
> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on.
>
> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... <G>
>
Yes and no ;-)
I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn,
as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem)
for one-way missions.
However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
and let them perish in space.
Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
to perish in space, it is OK.
Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
-- Zenon
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1156" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:03:46" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "starship-design: Survival of the fittest..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1156
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02771
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA02757
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA20250
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:37 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016160346.006929dc@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <232cf836.3625726e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Survival of the fittest...
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:03:46 +0100
Hi,
Some quotes, that I read sofar:
>Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
>us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
>nasty way.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
>Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;)
>
>Kelly
Most species on Earth won't attack others unless they feel threatened or if
they need something. This of course isn't some moral plan, but merely a way
to minimize damage to oneself and to not needlessly spend time hunting
whatever comes in ones way.
So it is not unlikely that alien civilizations have a similar attitude. As
long as they aren't in any need, or if they don't feel threatened, there is
little reason to attack.
This works, even while the fittest survive.
Regarding needs, an advanced civilization can use pretty much any solar
system to get and make what they want, so only if they get real big, they
may feel that they need our solar system.
And if their civilization is big, then it's hard to believe that they
haven't found us yet. After all, life has existed on Earth for a very long
time. If they wanted to make use of it, then why wait?
Timothy
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["496" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:12:33" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: link: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 496
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02784
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA02770
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA20292
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:52:40 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016161233.006c7e30@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <000401bdf8f9$141f9080$e05931cc@lparker>
References: <3de79798.36257274@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: link: Space Transportation Study
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:12:33 +0100
To All,
>Sorry, I was going to post it but I've lost the link. I will try to find it
>this weekend.
>
>Lee
I figured that since you didn't specifiy an addresse, one could easely find
it with a search.
So I had already searched with "Space Transportation Study", and among
other possibly interesting links that came up, this is most likely the one
you intend:
Commercial Space Transportation Study Web version top-level index
http://astp.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html
Timothy
From VM Fri Oct 16 09:59:42 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["224" "Fri" "16" "October" "1998" "16:54:22" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 224
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03685
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03605
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from - (dc2-modem748.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.236])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA21640
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:54:24 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981016165422.006929dc@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Transportation Study
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:54:22 +0100
Zenon wrote:
>Did you have in mind the
>"Commercial Space Transportation Study" at:
>http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html
I see, I was too late. Due that pile of SD-mails I had to read first.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["351" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "07:41:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 351
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA19547
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA19542
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 05:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA04741;
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:45:10 -0500
Message-ID: <001101bdf9cb$7bcdbcc0$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <22f2763e.3625726c@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:41:37 -0500
Kelly
> I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to
> all concerned.
No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they
rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at
even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages
from something Arecibo...
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["523" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "08:15:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 523
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23020
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA23015
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA06777;
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:19:13 -0500
Message-ID: <001401bdf9d0$3bb25a60$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810161335.OAA17258@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:15:38 -0500
Zenon,
> Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt?
I do not think you are anymore a specialist in basalt than I am in concrete,
umm, bad analogy, I can cast concrete. Well, anyway, basalt is still used in
your area of the world for culverts and such and is far superior to concrete
for most applications, including use on the moon and in orbit. I simply
thought information on it would be more readily available to you than most
of the rest of the list. Its not a well known product in the west I'm
afraid.
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["252" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "08:15:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "starship-design: RE: Space Transportation Study" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 252
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23008
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA23001
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 06:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lparker (p193.gnt.com [204.49.89.193])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA06772;
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:19:06 -0500
Message-ID: <001301bdf9d0$37ac6280$e05931cc@lparker>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199810161334.OAA17252@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Zenon Kulpa" <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: RE: Space Transportation Study
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:15:30 -0500
Zenon,
> Did you have in mind the
> "Commercial Space Transportation Study" at:
> http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/stpweb/CommSpaceTrans/index.html
Yes that is it. Thanks, I'm still wading through the 138 email messages I
had waiting Friday afternoon!
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:46 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["772" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "12:54:54" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 772
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05744
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05735
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante03.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante03.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.5])
by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA54078 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:55 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante03.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA95844 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001101bdf9cb$7bcdbcc0$e05931cc@lparker>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810171249480.30448-100000@dante03.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Lee,
I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio frequencies,
the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter
than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply
unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star
that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies.
Nels
On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> Kelly
>
> > I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to
> > all concerned.
>
> No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they
> rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at
> even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages
> from something Arecibo...
>
> Lee
>
>
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1538" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:22" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1538
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24640
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24633
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VWCa04680
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:22 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <608e6cbd.36296056@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:22 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 1:43:14 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>A comment on yr post Kelly.
>
>> economics is a science with understood laws and rules that even apply
across
>> species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't well researched, but is a
>> reflection of the structure of our minds, which excluding extensive gene
work,
>> isn't likely to change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it
>> roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring trivialities
like
>> music art etc falls into a couple major groups (feudal/dictator,
democratic)
>> which have existed for a few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort
of
>> law based, probably democratic society will dominate long term
(dictatortships
>> lack productivity to compete long term).
>>
>> So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major changes that
>> would alter things.
>
>As for 'major changes that would alter things'. How about fiddling with
>the human genome. There are several changes I'd like to see made (when/if
>possible) and it seems that we are heading into a time of ever increasing
>genetic manipulation. I know that current mores oppose this idea, but
>those have a way of changing with the times too. In fact, i would
>predict these changes being made before humanity truly becomes a
>spacefaring race.
>Nels
That could change some of the factors of our culture (much, if not most, of
our natures seems genetic) or do nothing depending on what you alter. What do
you want to change?
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil]
["2016" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" "<90b12550.36296062@aol.com>" "47" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2016
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24678
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24655
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PPDa18748
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:34 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <90b12550.36296062@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 2:03:31 AM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/14/98 6:27:35 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>>
>> >I have a question for the group. Barring putting a science fiction writer
>> >in the engineering spaces of every starship, is a class III civilization
>> >even concievable? Even if a society could scatter itself throughout the
>> >galaxy, the light barrier would prevent the kind of cultural cohesion
>> >required to keep them a unified "civilization" or even on the same
>> >evolutionary track.
>> >Best Regards,
>> >Nels Lindberg
>>
>> Light speed is a wall to us, but more advance civilizations will use more
>> advanced physics. Even now our physics no longer bars FTL, just doesn't
know
>> how to do it technically, or why it wouldn't cause nasty time paradoxes.
>>
>> Kelly
> Could you please explain how modern physical theory predicts FTL?
>I was under the impression that this was on the top of the list of things
>Not Allowed
>Best Regards
>Nels
The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design
for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek
technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of
space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects).
Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence
faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling).
Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say
you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster
then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'.
Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if
they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a
blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The
theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4931" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:39" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4931
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24677
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24653
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IETa02539
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:39 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <d95bda60.36296067@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:39 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 11:44:47 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
>> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
>> >> >still wait for breaktroughs.
>> >>
>> >> We don't actually need sustained,
>> >>
>> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
>> >may lead to a viable starship engine?
>>
>> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface transports. No
>> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question. At a high
>> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load, which is
>> handelable.
>>
>> >I doubt it.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro".
>For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
>"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
>to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
Its all a mater of scale. Scale wise the power to weight ratio of a 1G
starships not that much more then that of a hot sports car able to accell at
nearly 1G. The power of the vibrations should be equally handelable.
>> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
>> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
>> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
>> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
>> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
>>
>> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser
>> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built
>> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year timetable
>> it seems reasonable. Its not like
>> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
>>
>OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit.
So were liquid rocket engine designs in the late 1800's. Obviously nothing on
the shelf is going to do the job. So we need to figure out what can get from
paper to hardware in the desired time.
>[...]
>> >> >Not speaking about the waste heat (again - question
>> >> >of efficiency, but not only).
>> >>
>> >> Irrelavent. The waste heat would be dumped into a area of space
>> >> after The power was converted from sunlight. Average heat load
>> >> in the area wouldn't change much.
>> >>
>> >Just "dumped"? Into what "area"?
>> >In space you can expel the waste heat by radiation
>> >only, and for terawatt-range power stations that means huge
>> >high-temperature radiators and efficient enough heat transfer
>> >from the concentrated "reaction chamber" (or lasering medium)
>> >into that huge radiating structure...
>> >Above some power threshold it may become simply impossible.
>>
>> Or a hugh number of gigawatt platforms (current SSPS designs)
>> scatterd over a 1 AU ring.
>>
>I know, I know, thousands of Chevrolets linked together...
Hey, a few hundred gigwatts here, a few hundred gigwatts there, after a while
your talking real power. ;)
Besides we neeed a large baseline emmiter to keep the beem in ffocus over the
desired ranges.
>[..]
>> >> >Like the space elevator - theoretically possible, and
>> >> >we have even produced an appropriate material (buckytubes).
>> >> >Do you think we will build such an elevator within 50 years?
>> >>
>> >> I doubt we will ever build one. They cost far more then they are worth.
>> >>
>> >I do not speak about the cost, but about the technological
>> >(and manufacturing...) ability to actually build it,
>> >provided we have the money.
>>
>> Well we could build one now out of Kevlar and metal if we were
>> crazy enough to write the checks to cover the STAGERING costs of it.
>>
>No, kevlar + metal is not strong enough. Buckytubes are (barely).
I used to hang with a guy at JSC who was dippy for skyhooks. Kevlar is strong
enough, you just need a big taper on your teather. You could do it with
aluminum if you were crazy enough. (Course the geo sync part would look like
a samall moon...)
>I still do not see technological & manufacturing ability
>to build it now, no matter how big check you can underwrite...
>And the starship is much more hard to build, in my opinion.
>
>
>> >> Agree that Apoll made a lot of sence as a cold war "battle",
>> >> but a historian from 1919 would have found it pretty implausible.
>> >>
>> >I do not think so. There are plenty of examples in history when
>> >political reasons lead to great technological advances.
>> >I think that it is true for MOST of civilization advances...
>>
>> But most look pretty unbeleavable ahead of time.
>>
>Huh? Possibly as concerns the particulars, but the rule
>itself is well-known since some time...
Agreed.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["294" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:50" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 294
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24700
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24694
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ITNa22759
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:50 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e8b46b9c.36296072@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:50 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:49 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> So are we. We also co developed ways to cast concrete in hardvac.
>
>
>
>Basalt works better and Zenon can probably tell you how its done...
>
>
>
>Lee
Casting Basalt?!! Little hot for my liking!
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2630" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:30" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2630
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24654
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24647
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KSBa13873
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:30 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <105780b1.3629605e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:30 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 7:21:29 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:
>> One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
>> survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen.
If
>> they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the ship. If
the
>> ship can't convince earth they are clean, the decel microwave beam isn't
>> turned on.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>
>Well personally I strongly prefer "one-way" missions, that would totaly
>eliminate any treat to earth. As for your other precautions they are
>generally sound...
>
>As for the one-way vs two-way issue please consider this:
>
>Let's say we have a starship that can get to one of the nearest stars in
>10-20 years, carrying a few 100's to a few 1000's of scientists and crew.
>(I think this is fairly typical for most of this groups proposals is it
>not?)
>
>Now if they should have life-suport and suplies for a round-trip they
>would need to have about 40-50 years worth to have a few years on station
>and some safety margin. Now the people that would go would likely be
>around 30 when they leave, given that most of them should probably be at
>least PhD's and also have a few years of specific training for the
>mission. Now this means that when it's time to go home most of them would
>be in their late 40's or early 50's. Now this would mean that the
>scientists and crew would have to chose between living most of their
>remaining lives aboard the ship during a tedious trip home OR they could
>live out the rest of their lives scouting and researching this facinating
>new star system... I know which one I'd chose...
>
>SO, EVEN IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE, I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT
>AGAIN!!!
Assuming a 10-12 year trip time. Your 30 year olds get their in their early
40's. By late 40's they would be finishing up and ready to come home.
They'ld likely get home by the time they reach early '60's and spend a decade
or three pouring over their data and heading research projects into the data.
In your senario they would be stuck in the starship for40-60 years. Their
exploration gear expended, their ship systems runing down, and the
increasingly aged crew working harder and harder to keep runing the increasing
worn out ship systems. Assuming the ship can functino that long, and the
declining suplies and crew can keep being stretched. (Your talking about a
ship designd for a 30-40 year service life, being pushed to a 50-80 year
service life, and suplies stretched to twice their designed length. Folks
could get very hungry. And systems very short of spare parts.)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["475" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:02" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 475
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24742
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24731
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2CETa02316
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:02 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <f4a54bad.3629607e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:02 EDT
In a message dated 10/17/98 2:58:54 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
> Lee,
>I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio frequencies,
>the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter
>than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply
>unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star
>that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies.
>Nels
I remember reading that as well.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1125" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1125
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24758
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24738
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GHTa02329
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:55 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <326f0ffa.36296077@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:55 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 6:38:09 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> Also there are the practical problems. The space infastructure to do the
>
>> mining would take so much lift and cost to set up, that it would greatly
>
>> outweigh any on orbit damand for resources. For the cost of
>
>> seting it up, you
>
>> could ship years, maybe decades of material up from Earth. But
>
>> by then the
>
>> mine could be obsolete. Worse, without the mines, you'ld never need the
>
>> masive facilities in orbit. So you might wind up seting up a
>
>> mine, that does
>
>> nothing but support itself.
>
>
>
>The point at which it all becomes practical ia $100/lb to LEO.
>
>
>
>Lee
But, if it costs you $10 billino to lift the mineing gear and get it working,
but you only need enough stuff to equal $4 billion in lift costs. You
wouldn't launch the mine. As lift costs drop. Low tens (may be singles) of
dollars per pound to orbit is now technically possible if their is enough
demand. So lifting all the mass from Earth could save you so much lift costs
it would save more then the mine could.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["581" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 581
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24752
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24735
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2XAUa02341
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:58 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <d6921f40.3629607a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:58 EDT
In a message dated 10/17/98 7:46:49 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly
>
>
>
>> I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here to
>
>> all concerned.
>
>
>
>No, Someone on the list posted the power equations a year or so ago and they
>
>rather conclusively showed that those broadcasts were rather undetectable at
>
>even one light year. Which does not apply to intentionally beamed messages
>
>from something Arecibo...
>
>
>
>Lee
Undetectable by us, but then detecting the woble of stars with planets, or
seeing the plants was proven impossible too.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1989" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1989
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24784
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24778
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JEDa17824
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:13 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a90764a.36296089@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:13 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 10:05:23 AM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>> > >Good idea. As far as I know, Kelly is now maintaining the site?
>> > >
>> > As far as I know no one is maintaining it.
>> > If I had access I'ld fix some of the links.
>> >
>> Too bad. How come?
>>
>> Dave?
>>
>Unfortunately, it's my personal account on the machine and I don't have
>the ability to create other accounts.
>
>The amount of stuff on there is a bit much for anyone with a day job to
>maintain. I've always felt that perhaps the best option would be for
>everyone who wants to work on a part of the site to do it at one of the
>free homepage places (Tripod, Geocities, etc.). Then we could use the
>original site as more a kind of Table of Contents for all the other
>subsites. A distributed system would be easier to maintain, because we
>could each be responsible for a part of it. We would have to make sure
>that the main site linked to the subsites and the subsites linked back
>to the mainsite, but that would be easy. More difficult would be
>maintaining any crosslinks between subsites - but definitely possible,
>especially with the help of the mailing list. Anyway, we could each
>take a topic that we're most interested in: i.e., links to official
>documents, links to "advanced propulsion concepts", information on
>historical starship research, information on topics like fusion,
>fission, anti-matter, asteroid belt mining, space tourism, etc.
>
>David
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine
Thats a good idea, we could also post parts in our personal account spaces.
(I once offered to put most of the stuff I worked up for LIT on one of my AOL
accounts.) I do worry about sections disappering as people come and go from
the group or change accounts thou.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1466" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1466
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24718
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24712
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NTDa29193
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:42 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1eb3265e.3629606a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:42 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 8:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>>
>> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
>> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen.
>> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the
>> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean,
>> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on.
>>
>> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... <G>
>>
>Yes and no ;-)
>I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn,
>as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem)
>for one-way missions.
>
>However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
>but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
>safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
>go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
>and let them perish in space.
>Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
>it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
>to perish in space, it is OK.
>Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>
>-- Zenon
I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to
protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. In the other we ask for
volunteers to die for buracratic convenence. Big morality issue difference.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1965" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1965
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24772
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24759
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JLHa02082
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:10 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <6165df7d.36296086@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something topush against.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:10 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:43 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>
>
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> I was saying that colonies don't last long, and seldom are
>
>> started, without a
>
>> practical economic reason for there being there. Same way lots
>
>> of the US is
>
>> being abandoned since their not much economic draw for it.
>
>>
>
>> This was in responce to the suggestion from some one that we
>
>> would go out and
>
>> found colonies just because.
>
>
>
>Ahh, okay. I understand now. And I was pointing out how colonies didn't just
>
>"start", they began with fishing camps (an economic justification). Without
>
>going into boring historical detail, we are both right, we're just not
>
>talking about quite the same thing.
Right!
>In fact, there were "causes" behind most of the colonies. I was just
>
>pointing out that they were usually preceded by advanced scouts (the
>
>fishermen in most cases, but not all) and were attempting to reach some
>
>haven which they had been told was exceptionally attractive. Unfortunately,
>
>many of them went off course and ended up settling somewhere besides where
>
>they had originally intended, or their "causes" disappeared (frequently
>
>political causes) and the colony subsequently foundered.
>
>
>
>You were just taking exception to fishing camps being considered
>
>colonies...which they weren't.
Agree on all points.
>Incidentally, the ones that survived were mostly private ventures of one
>
>variety or another and although they frequently had difficult times at the
>
>beginning they mostly survived because conditions at their landing point
>
>were close to ideal and their cause held up.
>
>
>
>There may be lessons here for would be colonists of the planets and other
>
>stars...
Find rich aliens and raise the Jolly Rodger? Hum... Works for me! ;)
Far better then Zenon's "send them out to die for the cause". Certainly a
agrees with my demand for a profitable colony.
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1333" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1333
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24821
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24805
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VNOa22760
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:16 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <bfbc267b.3629608c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 9:16:55 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Bjorn,
>> >
>> > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling
>> > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there...
>> >
>> > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some
>> > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly...
>>
>> Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was
>> certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other
>> people will,
>>
>No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn.
>He even once stated that it will be better to kill you
>rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed...
Zenon, Zenon, Zenon. I never said that. Besides, I'm an American. I'ld just
put your investors and promoters in prison and freeze your assets for criminal
negligence and atempted murder or medical experimentation on humans. Then
seaze your equipment and ship. So much more civilized.
;)
>===>
>Maybe, instead of quarreling with Kelly again on this issue,
>I finally can sit down comfortably in my computer chair
>and watch you quarreling with him? ;-))
>
>Good luck,
Ohoo. Feash meat. ;)
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["706" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 706
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24795
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24785
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2COFa10656
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:05 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c7a34129.36296081@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:05 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:44 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien
>
>> EVER set foot
>
>> on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld
>
>> obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff
>
>> which all is
>
>> very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were
>
>> found in some
>
>> odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why?
>
>
>
>That one is almost as good as the one that alien nano machines are watching
>
>our every move!
>
>
>
>Lee
Hey it sure beats the one where were under galactic quarentine for being to
weird to talk to. ;)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3239" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:24" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3239
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24859
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24852
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KETa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:24 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5549f855.36296094@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:24 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 1:54:36 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>A compilation of two letters:
>
>>>No, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of staying in
space.
>>
>>One SETI researchers used something like that to prove NO alien EVER set
foot
>>on Earth. Any such exposure would have released microbes so alien they'ld
>>obviously not be from arund here (as apposed to our local stuff which all is
>>very closely related). The fact no really alien microbes were found in some
>>odd niche suggested no one made it here. I wounder why?
>
>Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't
>happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria.
>And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens
>that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not
>just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would
>hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's
>atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the
>spacesuit from becoming a balloon.
Surprized you heard about the 'grays'. That style of alien sighting is only
common in the U.S. (other areas of the world have different cultural
preferences) europeansd generally report Nordic looking ET's. ;)
Anyway quock check shows the aliens are B.S. As to the idea the contamination
won't happen without quatities of microbes, thats not really true. Microbes
reproduce. So if one hits a fertile zone, you quickly get quantities.
>
>====================================================================
>
>>>But aren't we more hostile to these bacteria, as they are to us? Afterall,
>>>they are strange to us, and we are strange to them. Except we have a
>>>numerical advantage: our body has many many more cells to attack.
>>>I've asked a similar question before. Who's likely to be attacked most
>>>badly, the small critter in our big alien body, or we?
>>
>>They would have te edge. As a multi-celular organism that has lots of
>>simbiotic microbes that it needs to leave alone. Our bodies can't take as
>>agressive a responce as would be nessisary. The attacking microbes however
>>only need to find something in our bodies that they could feed on. Far
>>simpler task.
>
>Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters
>of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of
>the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially
>compensate for this thermal inconveniance.
That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive
(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a
feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against.
>Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding
>for the bacteria or small organisms any easier.
>In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can
>cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the
>body itself in response to the intruder.
Again, only if its something te body knows to attack. Many things will kill
us without triggering any defensive measure.
>
>Timothy
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1032" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:26" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1032
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24820
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24800
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KSWa10441
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:26 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <38088da.3629605a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Engine Parameters
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:26 EDT
In a message dated 10/15/98 8:30:29 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 7:24:34 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>>
>> >Why does your car's speedometer read to over 70 mph? You never go that
>> >fast and would just get a ticket if you did.
>>
>> Not in my area of the country.
>>
>> >Because, the optimum cruise speed of the engine is less than the maximum
>> >speed, that why.
>>
>> What does that meen? Why would you build a ship (spending all the extra
>> cost) to make it able to take a multi g boost? It has no practical benifit.
>>
>Kelly, it is the other way round: you are designing a ship for
>optimal work at 1g (e.g., the best fuel efficiency, reliability, etc.).
>And then - bingo - it appears that such designed ship
>is capable to achieve 10g for some time
>(albeit with less efficiency). OK?
Not unless you want to assume structures all redesigned to take 10 times the
stress, and engines designed to 10 times the thrust?
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4154" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "101" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4154
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24875
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24866
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2BZRa08737
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:32 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <356417a8.3629609c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/14/98 11:12:53 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > economics is a science with understood laws and rules that
> > even apply across species (where aplicable). Psychology isn't
> > well researched, but is a reflection of the structure of our
> > minds, which excluding extensive gene work, isn't likely to
> > change in the next few million years, and seems to trace it
> > roots back through most mammals. Society, culture ignoring
> > trivialities like music art etc falls into a couple major
> > groups (feudal/dictator, democratic) which have existed for a
> > few thousand years. So were pretty sure some sort of law
> > based, probably democratic society will dominate long term
> > (dictatortships lack productivity to compete long term).
>
>Perhaps you've heard the saying "The first step to knowledge is
>to know how much you don't know."
Glad I could help you. ;)
>Economics can't make useful predictions; the models used in
>economics are completely artificial and unrealistic.
Thats a bit of a stretch. Economic models do very acuratly predict what they
are intended to predict. What else were you expecting them to?
>Psychology
>can't make useful predictions either --
Its immature but within ranges its fairly good at predicting responces of
populations, which is what were talking about.
>-- even if it is that
>the human mind will remain unchanged in the future (very
>doubtful, considering the increasing use of automated aids to
>thought), psychology is nowhere near understanding how the mind
>works.
If your talking about rewiring the brain, all bets are off. Past that humans
use of AI's or something is likely to effect our cultures and belifs a bit,
but hardly or isticts, values, or interests given they show a high genetic
component.
>As for social change, any society looks like any other as long as
>you use a vague enough description. To say that a future society
>will share aspects with historical ones is not the same as saying
>that it will work exactly like any particular historical society.
>
> > So for the purposes of this discusino, I can't see any major
> > changes that would alter things.
>
>I think your inability to see such possibilities comes from your
>lack of understanding, not to mention some apparently substantial
>misunderstandings, of fields like economics, psychology, and
>sociology.
Well this conversations taking a turn for the pissy.
> > Actually humans can't live without artificial work.
>
>This is only true recently, and only because there are more
>humans on the planet than an unmaintained ecology can support.
>In fact, many of our environmental problems stem from a
>fundamental belief that things like air, water, and food just
>sort of fall into our laps, ingrained from times when there were
>less than a few million humans on the planet.
Well technically no homosapieans could survive without some technology. A
unique aspect of our species is that were and obvious meat eater who lost the
teeth to bite through skin. So some toolmaking is required for any H. Sap..
Beyond that, for last few centuries strongly agrarian cultures lived with
populations to high to be supported without farm. A big edge the American
colonists had over the eastern American abbos who (as hunter gatherers)
required tens of times more land for the same pop.
Back to the point however given only developed coutries will go into space,
their culture (used to living in industrial artificial worlds) arn't likely to
weird out inside a L5.
>In space, you don't just have to work to prevent from destroying
>the environment that sustains you; you have to create it from
>scratch and be involved in every aspect of maintaining it, which
>isn't the way things are on Earth.
You see a lot of natural farms, water suplies, sewage treatment, factories
etc? We live in totally artificial "worlds" called cities. Moving cities
into space will up the artificiality up a bit in regards to air, but thats not
going to force people to any new political and social structure. Its only
likely to effect the municiple tax structure.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1279" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:29:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Survival of the fittest..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1279
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25187
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25143
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JGDa18750
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:36 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2718e950.362960a0@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Survival of the fittest...
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:29:36 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 9:56:53 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Some quotes, that I read sofar:
>
>>Lets hope that most alien civilizations would be more willing to look at
>>us from a distance, rather than interfere with us in a particularly
>>nasty way.
>>
>>Kyle R. Mcallister
>
>>Ands lets hope we don't stumble into anyones picknic! ;)
>>
>>Kelly
>
>Most species on Earth won't attack others unless they feel threatened or if
>they need something. This of course isn't some moral plan, but merely a way
>to minimize damage to oneself and to not needlessly spend time hunting
>whatever comes in ones way.
>So it is not unlikely that alien civilizations have a similar attitude. As
>long as they aren't in any need, or if they don't feel threatened, there is
>little reason to attack.
>This works, even while the fittest survive.
>
>Regarding needs, an advanced civilization can use pretty much any solar
>system to get and make what they want, so only if they get real big, they
>may feel that they need our solar system.
>
>And if their civilization is big, then it's hard to believe that they
>haven't found us yet. After all, life has existed on Earth for a very long
>time. If they wanted to make use of it, then why wait?
>
>Timothy
All very true.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["706" "Sat" "17" "October" "1998" "23:28:47" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 706
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25422
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25354
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id VAEFa17823;
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:47 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e34c8f27.3629606f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 23:28:47 EDT
In a message dated 10/16/98 6:37:48 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>
>
>> spiky balloon like things? Doesn't ring any bells. Could you reasonably
>
>> build and drop safe ones for pennies a pound to surface and back
>
>> to market?
>
>
>
>I don't really know. They (NASA) have tested them, although I don't think
>
>the drop was from orbit, I think so far they have just tossed them from high
>
>flying aircraft to evaluate their impact performance. Basically it was just
>
>an inflatable balloon shaped like a caltrop or a child's jack, very similar
>
>to what was used on Mars. Apparently it can soft land a rather large payload
>
>very cheaply.
>
>
>
>Lee
Sorry, havent a clue.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2742" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "07:15:03" "-0700" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "75" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2742
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA25285
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from send104.yahoomail.com (send104.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA25278
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19981018141503.21844.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com>
Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send104.yahoomail.com; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:15:03 PDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/15/98 11:44:47 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
wrote:
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:23:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
wrote:
> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 9:01:44 AM,
zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
> >> >> >I don't think so. Controlling sustained fusion reaction
> >> >> >and directing the output to achieve efficient thrust
> >> >> >still wait for breaktroughs.
> >> >>
> >> >> We don't actually need sustained,
> >> >>
> >> >Eh? Do you thing that micro-explosions or similar concept
> >> >may lead to a viable starship engine?
> >>
> >> Sure, we use micro explosion to power most of our suyrface
transports. No
> >> fundemental reason a pulsed fusion drive is out of the question.
At a high
> >> enough pulse rate all the pulses just form a vibration load,
which is
> >> handelable.
> >>
> >> >I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word
"micro".
> >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
> >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
> >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
/¯\_/¯\
´ >-2 waves
\_/¯\_/
>
> Its all a mater of scale. Scale wise the power to weight ratio of a
1G
> starships not that much more then that of a hot sports car able to
accell at
> nearly 1G. The power of the vibrations should be equally handelable.
>
>
>
> >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
> >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
> >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
> >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
> >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
> >>
> >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser
> >> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built
> >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year
timetable
> >> it seems reasonable. Its not like
> >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
> >>
> >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit.
Do you really think that we'll have
not-too-power-eating-plasma-engines in ONLY 50 years??
Maybe with pinchers, but it'd be better to launch simple particules
you don't have to carry, like hydrogen: ionize'em, de ionize'em at the
end, use supraconductors, after all, it's almost 0 K outside.
==
Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!!
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["481" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "10:05:52" "-0500" "Gene Marlin" "rmarlin@network-one.com" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 481
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01808
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netra1.network-one.com (netra1.network-one.com [209.149.88.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA01803
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from network-one.com ([209.149.88.189]) by netra1.network-one.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA48F2
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>;
Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:07:16 -0500
Message-ID: <362A03D0.B50B0F21@network-one.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>
From: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:05:52 -0500
> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
> >
I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't think
it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and
deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are sending
people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the
cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission?
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1066" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "17:17:36" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1066
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09064
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09007
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA16842
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:42 -0500
Message-ID: <000701bdfae5$1c886ec0$2fb1fea9@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <f4a54bad.3629607e@aol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:36 -0500
> In a message dated 10/17/98 2:58:54 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
> > Lee,
> >I recall reading (somewhere, but it was a book) that at radio
> frequencies,
> >the earth's artificial emissions are several orders of magnitude brighter
> >than the sun. Did that person say they would be /undetectable/ or simply
> >unreadable. If the latter, then we may still stick out as a G class star
> >that is _very_ bright at radio frequencies.
> >Nels
>
> I remember reading that as well.
>
> Kelly
Don't make me get out my slide rule...Its an inverse square law people, if
you don't know the equation, I can provide it. Take the lowest possible
signal that we can _detect_, divide it by 100 just for general principles
(to make all of you super alien technology people happy) work through the
equation backward and tell me what you get.
If you don't want to do the math I will summarize it for you: IF you took
the entire output of a medium size nuclear weapon and radiated it at just
ONE frequency, it wouldn't be detectable at even fifty light years away.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["598" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "17:17:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 598
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09025
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08991
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p241.gnt.com [204.49.91.1])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA16831;
Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:32 -0500
Message-ID: <000601bdfae5$1721fc80$2fb1fea9@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <326f0ffa.36296077@aol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:17:24 -0500
Kelly,
> But, if it costs you $10 billino to lift the mineing gear and get
> it working,
> but you only need enough stuff to equal $4 billion in lift costs. You
> wouldn't launch the mine. As lift costs drop. Low tens (may be
> singles) of
> dollars per pound to orbit is now technically possible if their is enough
> demand. So lifting all the mass from Earth could save you so
> much lift costs
> it would save more then the mine could.
Read the Commercial Space Transportation Study, this was all covered and
allowed for. I repeat, the breakeven point is $100/lb to low Earth orbit.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1059" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "22:47:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1059
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29375
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29366
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HNWa02539
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:32 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <692f7866.362aa844@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/18/98 10:12:28 AM, rmarlin@network-one.com wrote:
>> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
>> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
>> >
>
>I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't
think
>it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and
>deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are
sending
>people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the
>cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission?
You miss the point. We can't send colonists. To do that we would need a
selfsustaining mini civilization which is WAY beyond anything we could or
would do. It would technically be virtually impossible, at least requireing a
population tens to hundreds of times larger.
The debate isn't between sending a scouting mission or sending a colony. The
debate is between sending a say 8 year survey mission and returning them. Or
sending a 8 year survey mission and leaving them there to die.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1492" "Sun" "18" "October" "1998" "22:47:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1492
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29566
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29556
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MBFa13873
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:29 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8ea18006.362aa841@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:47:29 EDT
In a message dated 10/18/98 9:16:16 AM, paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com wrote:
>=======
>> >> >I must disagree. Of course funding is necessary,
>> >> >but all currents concepts how to built it I know about
>> >> >seem to me to be blind alleys - maybe possible as a laboratory
>> >> >experiment, but impractical or impossible to scale up
>> >> >into the terawatt-range needed for a starship.
>> >>
>> >> The Bussard designs I used seemed pretty scaleable, the laser
>> >> fusion systems looked good. Natural since we never built
>> >> a production copy this is questionable, but for a 50 year
>timetable
>> >> it seems reasonable. Its not like
>> >> I'm pitching zero-point energy systems or something.
>> >>
>> >OK, but still it is only handwaving at this stage, you must admit.
>Do you really think that we'll have
>not-too-power-eating-plasma-engines in ONLY 50 years??
Sure. The fusion part we've done (thou research pretty well died when the
fuel crises fizzeled). Making more efficent Lasers or voltage compresion
systems certainly shouldn't take that long. The big if is will there be any
reason to develop the plasma motors. If so, they won't take 50 years. If
not, they won't be done.
>Maybe with pinchers, but it'd be better to launch simple particules
>you don't have to carry, like hydrogen: ionize'em, de ionize'em at the
>end, use supraconductors, after all, it's almost 0 K outside.
Don't follow this. Also superconducters should probably be avoided.
>==
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1684" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:18:41" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1684
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA08060
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA08047
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19287; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:18:41 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191218.NAA19287@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:18:41 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/16/98 8:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
> >>
> >> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
> >> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen.
> >> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the
> >> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean,
> >> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on.
> >>
> >> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... <G>
> >>
> >Yes and no ;-)
> >I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn,
> >as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem)
> >for one-way missions.
> >
> >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
> >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
> >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
> >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
> >and let them perish in space.
> >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
> >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
> >to perish in space, it is OK.
> >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>
> I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to
> protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. In the other we ask for
> volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.
>
Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))
> Big morality issue difference.
>
Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["785" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:16:13" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "16" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 785
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09291
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA09280
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19284; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:16:13 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191216.NAA19284@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:16:13 +0100 (MET)
> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
> > Why do you think I am a specialist on casting basalt?
>
> I do not think you are anymore a specialist in basalt than I am in concrete,
> umm, bad analogy, I can cast concrete. Well, anyway, basalt is still used in
> your area of the world for culverts and such and is far superior to concrete
> for most applications, including use on the moon and in orbit. I simply
> thought information on it would be more readily available to you than most
> of the rest of the list. Its not a well known product in the west I'm afraid.
>
Strange. I remember vaguely that I have read somewhere long ago
about the possibility of casting building elements from basalt
but I do not know of any such industry either in the East or West...
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:47 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1679" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:26:18" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1679
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09389
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA09374
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19301; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:26:18 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191226.NAA19301@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:26:18 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/15/98 9:16:55 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, L. Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bjorn,
> >> >
> >> > > And the more you guys keep talking about the dangers of setling
> >> > > a "live" terran planet the more I wanna go there...
> >> >
> >> > I want to go also, I just don't want to die on the shores of some
> >> > alien sea while a bug I can't even see turns my insides into jelly...
> >>
> >> Well, _I_ would be willing to take that chance. Heck I'd even go if it was
> >> certain that I'd die within a day or two. And I'm sure lots of other
> >> people will,
> >>
> >No way, because Kelly will stop you, Bjorn.
> >He even once stated that it will be better to kill you
> >rather than to allow you making such abhorrent deed...
>
> Zenon, Zenon, Zenon. I never said that. Besides, I'm an American.
> I'ld just put your investors and promoters in prison and freeze
> your assets for criminal negligence and atempted murder
> or medical experimentation on humans. Then
> seaze your equipment and ship. So much more civilized.
>
> ;)
>
See, Bjorn, Kelly seems to become a little milder
(of old age, perhaps? ;-)
You have a chance of not being killed instantly,
only being put in prison to die, instead of being put at
interstellar mission to die among the stars.
Just to show you how abhorrent it is to die among stars.
So much more civilized to die in the American prison.
And I have wondered at times why various people around the world
used to shout "Ami go home!".
Now I am beginning to understand... ;-(
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["723" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:31:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 723
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA09913
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA09900
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19306; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:31:17 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191231.NAA19306@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:31:17 +0100 (MET)
> From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
>
> zkulpa@ wrote:zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
>
[...]
> > >Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro".
> > >For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
> > >"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
> > >to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
>
> Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
> if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
> /¯\_/¯\
> ´ >-2 waves
> \_/¯\_/
>
Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line,
you can only to put them side by side.
Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways,
instead of eliminating each other.
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1119" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:50:52" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1119
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13174
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA13167
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA19362; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:50:52 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191250.NAA19362@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:50:52 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/14/98 12:39:26 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
> >>
> >> Let us hope the whole galaxy doesn't subscribe to the survival of the
> >> fittest philosophy, we may just run into another intelligent species
> >> which is more fit...
> >>
> >That is quite possible.
> >Thus I would rather not count on that hope -
> >better work hard to become more fit.
> >And do not advertise our presence to all the Galaxy too early...
>
> I think we've got 50 years of broadcasts screeming were here
> to all concerned.
>
I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts:
first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out,
practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are
at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left
to work of being more fit...
I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts
(using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars,
especialy close ones. I consider it silly,
equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates
of our solar system.
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3363" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:09:54" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3363
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16361
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA16349
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19376; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:09:54 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191309.OAA19376@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:09:54 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
> >>
> >> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> >> >
> >> > And there is a big bootstrap problem:
> >> > space mining is impractical without developed human
> >> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
> >> > is impossible without space mining...
> >> >
> >> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
> >>
> >Or something other we may not yet foresee.
> >Usually sooner or later something surfaces.
> >Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because
> >it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon)
> >until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration
> >make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder
> >than trip to low orbit today.
>
> Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans
> ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using space.
>
I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
> >Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars,
> >even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in
> >this direction. Necessity to sustain people there
> >for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion
> >systems and other advanced technologies, opening
> >this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining
> >assessment missions.
>
> Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have
> little significant impact. They have no reason to develop or use practical
> systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political
> reasons.
>
Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data
on the conditions there, necessary to design and build
further non-governemnt facilities and colonies.
Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment
needed for the private exploration of Mars.
The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
equally "protected" from human enterprise.
On the other hand, of course I would like better
the first Mars Base to be build privately by Mars Society
& private companies (possibly supported by government
throuh the "Mars Prize" system)...
But just in case, let NASA try this too -
some competition may be healthy here.
> >I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS
> >(which in current situation seems only a complicated
> >way of transferring funds to Russian mafia),
>
> Big agree!!
>
> >leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies,
> >(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-)
> >and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors
> >like the Mars Base.
>
> At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself usefull,
> but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching
> and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration efforts.
>
Exactly.
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2819" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:20:01" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "70" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2819
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18267
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18209
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19391; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:20:01 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191320.OAA19391@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:20:01 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will
> >> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter
> >> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
> >>
> >> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits.
> >> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once
> >> in a while too.
> >>
> >Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so
> >small that there is no real danger even when the container fails.
> >It will be another thing with larger amounts.
> >Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers
> >on highways is a proof that we can make and transport
> >antimatter in bulk...
>
> Well yeah I can see the public geting a bit upset if we start creating
> and storing tens of tons of anti particals in our starships Bose-Enstine
> condesit tank. Especial if we do it in low Earth orbit. ;)
>
That was exactly my point...
> >[...]
> >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet
> >> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat
> >> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent
> >> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
> >>
> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing
> >> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your
> >> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift
> >> costs are about nil.
> >>
> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
> >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
> >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
> >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
> >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
> >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
> >appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
>
> Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space
> (water, ore, air subcomponents)
>
Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit.
> spining for grav isn't hard.
>
Still not yet tested practically .
> Probably no real chance of
> finding a planet with 1 g,
>
Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.
> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
>
I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
lower temperature variation.
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 09:45:48 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1305" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "14:27:09" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1305
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19288
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA19270
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA19408; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:27:09 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810191327.OAA19408@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:27:09 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 12:03:54 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote:
>
[...]
> >I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were
> >"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide
> >whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests
> >succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the
> > others..
>
> The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food" samples,
> and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and
> photosynthetic life. But no organic mater. So after a lot of heated debate
> they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically
> reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic
> mater. Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the organic
> detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it. More fearce debate.---
>
That shows clearly the superiority of manned exploration
over a robotic one.
A run-of-the-mill geologist with a hammer and a few chemicals
in his suitcase field lab can settle the problem in ten minutes,
and in several hours he can produce a wealth of data on the Martian
conditions larger than all robotic crafts ever sent to Mars.
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 19 10:26:00 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2144" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "10:13:55" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "41" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2144
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19231
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19219;
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
In-Reply-To: <90b12550.36296062@aol.com>
References: <90b12550.36296062@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design
> for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek
> technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of
> space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects).
The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in
order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy
density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then.
> Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence
> faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling).
None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all.
"Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to
communicate information.
> Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say
> you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster
> then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'.
You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
have FTL particles at all.
> Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if
> they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a
> blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The
> theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.)
General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
or a "warp bubble".
From VM Mon Oct 19 10:31:30 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["584" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "18:20:48" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 584
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24723
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA24691
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.67]
by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
id 0zVIwG-0007Cf-00; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:17:49 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019182048.00838d40@mail.u-net.com>
X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <362A03D0.B50B0F21@network-one.com>
References: <199810151421.PAA16382@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:20:48 +0100
>I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't
think
>it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and
>deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are
sending
>people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice the
>cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission?
I completely disagree.
how do you sell this to the media?
You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably
the reason their taxes are now 30% higher.
Andrew West
From VM Mon Oct 19 10:37:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["44343" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "06:56:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "1002" "starship-design: FW: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 44343
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01105
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01054
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA04711
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p219.gnt.com [204.49.89.219])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA09857
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:58:41 -0500
Message-ID: <000801bdfb57$91684c20$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:56:54 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spaceviews@wayback.com [mailto:owner-spaceviews@wayback.com]
On Behalf Of jeff@spaceviews.com
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:34 PM
Subject: SpaceViews Update -- 1998 October 15
[ SpaceViews (tm) newsletter ]
[ see end of message for our NEW address to subscribe / unsubscribe ]
S P A C E V I E W S U P D A T E
1998 October 15
http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/1015/
*** Top Stories ***
Goldin Defends Russian Space Station Bailout Plan
Air Force Announces EELV Contacts
SOHO Instruments Come Back Online
*** Technology ***
AXAF Launch Delayed Again
Three Successful Launches
Sea Launch License Reinstated, First Launch in March
*** Policy ***
Congress Approves Commercial Space Bill
Congress Approves NASA Budget
On 40th Anniversary, NASA Looks Ahead
*** Science **
RTG Heat May Account for Anomalous Spacecraft Acceleration
Scientists Study Stormy Worlds
Hubble Glimpses Distant Galaxies
*** CyberSpace ***
Brian's Space Hotlist
NASA Watch
Understanding the Leonid Meteor Storms
Space Jobs
*** Space Capsules ***
SpaceViews Event Horizon
Other News
*** Top Stories ***
Goldin Defends Russian Space Station Bailout Plan
Caught in a growing rift between Congress and the Clinton
Administration, NASA administrator Dan Goldin defended a plan to
financially support the Russian Space Agency and hinted that a lack of
such support could doom the station.
"If we cannot fund this properly because of the budget deal,
then maybe we ought to cancel the space station," Goldin told members
of the House Science Committee during a hearing Wednesday, October 7.
"I would say this project will have to be terminated unless there is a
commitment by the government that we have to give it the resources we
need."
Florida Today reported that Goldin admitted that the major
problems faced by the International Space Station (ISS) had "pushed
him to the brink of resignation," but he decided against it.
Goldin was called upon by the committee to defend a plan that
would funnel up to $660 million to the Russian Space Agency over the
next four years, in an effort to support the construction of the ISS.
That figure includes a $60 million payment to Russia reported two days
earlier that gives NASA Russia's share of the research time and space
on ISS during its assembly.
That report came a few days after an October 2 announcement by
NASA that the first launches of the space station would take place is
planned in November in December, but that the launch of the Service
Module would be delayed to at least mid-1999.
NASA, the Russian Space Agency (RSA), and the other partners
agreed to launch the first two station elements on schedule. The
Russian-built, U.S.-funded Zarya control module is scheduled for
launch November 20 on a Proton booster from Baikonur, Kazakhstan.
It will be followed December 3 with the launch of the shuttle
Endeavour on mission STS-88. Endeavour will carry the Unity docking
node into orbit. Astronauts will attach Unity to Zarya in a series of
spacewalks during the mission.
"I understand why members of this committee have great concern
about the critical nature of Russia's contributions," Goldin said in
an opening statement. "We share those concerns. Our reliance on
Russian capabilities has to be reduced, not by eliminating their
involvement but by adding layers of protection."
That view was not shared by other panelists, such as James
Oberg, a space program writer and consultant. "Russia's inability to
fulfill its promises is not due to any temporary conditions which will
easily go away," he said, citing allegations of corruption and a
general unwillingness by the Russian government to give money to the
Russian Space Agency.
Calling the upcoming first element launches the "biggest Hail
Mary passes in history," Oberg said that "the wobbly assembly strategy
is a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong."
Judyth Twigg, a political science professor at Virginia
Commonwealth University and an expert on the Russian economy, also
warned that a simple infusion of funds is not enough to fix the
Russian problems. Noting a gradual collapse of Russia's industrial
and operational capacity, she said that "money is a necessary, but not
a sufficient, short-term fix."
Without Russian participation in the station, however, the
overall cost of the station may still increase, claimed Jay Chabrow,
who chaired a study earlier this year on space station costs. "Since
May, not a single ruble has flowed from the Russian government to
RSA," he said. "Even knowing that, I will still tell you that without
near-term Russian participation the cost to assemble the ISS would
easily exceed the CAV Task Force's projection."
Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) vented his
frustration with the station's problems not only at Goldin, but at the
Clinton Administration. He noted that two key Administration members,
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Jacob Lew, Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, who were invited to speak at the
hearing but refused to attend.
"An appearance at today's hearing by the White House and State
Department would have at least sent a signal that they cared about the
program and wanted to work with us towards a solution," Sensenbrenner
said. "We could not begin to consider supporting this initial $60
million reallocation without their constructive participation in the
process."
"The plain truth is that the White House is addicted to the
Russians," Sensenbrenner claimed. "I'm beginning to think it doesn't
care whether the Space Station gets built, so long as the Russians are
happy."
Sensenbrenner warned that if the Administration doesn't show
any willingness to work with Congress, he and his colleagues may end
up developing their own solution that "will put an end to this
problem, one way or the other."
"My colleagues and I may find a way to do that and keep Russia
in the program. We might not," Sensenbrenner said. "I would prefer to
work with the Administration, but we cannot keep waiting for
leadership that may never come."
Air Force Announces EELV Contacts
The U.S. Air Force awarded over $3 billion in contracts
Friday, October 16, to aerospace industry giants Boeing and Lockheed
Martin as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
program.
The Air Force will give $1.15 billion to Lockheed Martin for
nine launches on its Atlas-derived EELV booster and $1.38 billion to
Boeing for 19 launches on its Delta IV series of boosters. Boeing
will get an additional $500 million to supplement development of the
Delta IV.
Boeing's 19 launches will be spread out between 2002 and 2006.
Lockheed Martin's launches will run from 2003 to 2005. The Air Force
plans to use the EELV launches to replace its current use of Atlas,
Delta, and Titan vehicles.
The EELV program is an Air Force project to reduce the cost of
space access for military payloads by at least 25 percent. The EELV
boosters selected are derivitives of commercial boosters in service or
in development.
The selection of Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the EELV
contracts is no surprise. Both were awarded development contracts in
late 1996, and last year the Air Force said it planned a "dual-source
procurement strategy" to reduce reliance on a single vehicle.
Boeing's Delta IV is a family of vehicles based around a
common core booster, powered by a Rocketdyne RS-68 engine, powered by
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Various combinations of the core
booster and upper stages are used for different Delta IV vehicles.
The Delta IV Medium uses a single core booster and a Delta III
cryogenic upper stage. It can loft 4,140 kg (9,200 lbs.) into
geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). The Delta IV Heavy uses three
core boosters attached side-by-side with a modified Delta III upper
stage and expanded payload fairing on the middle core booster. It can
carry 13,050 kg (29,000 lbs.) into GTO.
Lockheed Martin's EELV proposal, based on its Atlas III
booster, also uses a core booster, based on the Russian-designed
RD-180 engine. A Medium Launch Vehicle will use a single core booster
and Centaur upper stage to place 5,260 kg (11,600 lbs.) in GTO, while
a Heavy Lift Vehicle uses three core boosters and a Centaur to loft
6,580 kg (14,500 lbs.) into GTO.
SOHO Instruments Come Back Online
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft is
approaching a complete recovery from problems encountered earlier this
year as a number of its instruments have been turned back on, NASA
reported Wednesday, October 14.
NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) officials showed off new
images returned by two of SOHO's instruments, the Michaelson Doppler
Interferometer (MDI) and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT),
to show that the spacecraft is approaching normal operations for the
first time in nearly four months.
"Scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have waited
anxiously for the recover of SOHO," said Roger Bonnet, ESA director of
science. Because of the "extraordinary effort" of NASA and ESA
personnel and industry contractors, Bonnet said, "the world has
recovered its chief watchdog on the Sun."
Nine of SOHO's 12 instruments have been turned on, said ESA
project scientist Bernhard Fleck. Four of the instruments, including
MDI and EIT, are fully functional, while the other five are being
carefully checked out.
"So far no signs of damage due to thermal stress during the
deep freeze have been detected," Fleck said. The remaining
instruments will be tested during the next few weeks.
"We hope that all SOHO scientific instruments can be returned
to the same level of health, so we can resume scientific operations in
the near future," said U.S. SOHO project scientist Joe Gurman.
Controllers lost contact with SOHO June 24 when a combination
of several problems on the ground, including poor decisions by ground
controllers, sent the spacecraft into a spin. The spacecraft was out
of contact with the Earth until early August, and its spin was
corrected September 16 after its hydrazine fuel thawed.
SOHO was launched in December 1995 and completed its primary
mission to the study the Sun in April. NASA and ESA then decided to
extend SOHO's mission through 2003, so the spacecraft can monitor the
Sun as it passes through the peak of its 11-year activity cycle around
the year 2000.
*** Technology ***
AXAF Launch Delayed Again
NASA announced Tuesday, October 13, that the shipment of the
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) to Cape Canaveral in
preparation for an upcoming shuttle launch had been delayed while a
review of the project is performed.
AXAF was to be shipped by its builder, aerospace company TRW,
to Cape Canaveral this month. There the spacecraft was to be prepared
for a launch on the space shuttle Columbia January 21, 1999.
However, AXAF will remain at TRW's Redondo Beach, California,
facility to continue tests and to replace an electrical switching box
on the satellite. In addition, a review of AXAF, performed by NASA
Chief Engineer Daniel Mulville, will be performed between now and
mid-January.
"We think it's prudent to wait to see what the review will
tell us before we set shipment and launch dates, so we don't expect to
ship AXAF before that," said Kenneth Ledbetter, director of the
Mission and Payload Division of the Office of Space Science at NASA.
That would likely delay the launch of AXAF until mid-1999.
"It was a difficult decision, but we evaluated a number of
options for handling the remaining work, and selected the one that
will give us the most assurance of successfully completing the work,"
Ledbetter said.
AXAF had earlier been planned for an August 1998 launch, but
problems with the spacecraft pushed back the launch to December, then
to January 1999 to avoid conflicts with the first shuttle mission
dedicated to the assembly of the International Space Station.
Once in space, AXAF will fly in an elliptical orbit far above
the orbit of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory, other spacecraft that, like AXAF and the
under-development Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), are part
of NASA's "Great Observatories" project.
AXAF will spend at least five years studying X=ray sources in
the universe, including supernova remnants, black holes, neutron
stars, and quasars.
Three Successful Launches
Ariane, Atlas, and Taurus boosters successfully launched an
assortment of commercial and military satellites from launch sites in
North and South America in early October.
An Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) Taurus booster launched
a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite from Vandenberg Air
Force Base, California, at 6:04 am EDT (1004 UT) Saturday, October 3.
The Taurus carried the 700-kg (1,540-lb.) Space Technology
Experiment (STEX) satellite for the NRO. STEX, built by Lockheed
Martin, is designed to demonstrate 29 new technologies that may be
applied to future spacecraft. The tests include a tether, an
electrical propulsion system, and a low-shock device to gently
separate the satellite from the booster.
An Ariane 44L lifted off at 6:51 pm EDT (2251 UT) Monday,
October 5, from Kourou, French Guiana, carrying the Eutelsat W2 and
Sirius 3 communications satellites into orbit, the prelude for an
Ariane 5 launch later in the month.
The W2 satellite, built by the French company Alcatel, will be
used by Eutelsat, the European Telecommunications Satellite
Organization, to provide direct TV coverage for Europe, North Africa,
and the Middle East. The Sirius 3 satellite, built by Hughes, will
provide direct TV for Scandinavia.
The launch is the last before the October 20 launch of an
Ariane 5 booster, the third launch of the heavy-lift rocket. Ariane
503 will carry an atmospheric reentry demonstrator and a dummy
satellite.
An Atlas 2A lifted off at 6:50 pm EDT (2250 UT) Friday,
October 9,from Pad 36B at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying the
Eutelsat Hot Bird 5 satellite into orbit.
There were a number of problems that delayed the launch,
originally scheduled for 5:55 pm EDT (2155 UT). The launch time was
pushed back 5 minutes to avoid the threat of a possible collision with
an orbiting spacecraft, then further delayed by clouds and lightning
in the area.
The weather did clear and the launch was rescheduled for 6:30
pm EDT (2230 UT). The countdown proceeded but was stopped at the
1-minute 18-second mark when a sensor reported that the liquid oxygen
tank on the Centaur upper stage was overfilled. That and other minor
problems were corrected, clearing the way for a launch at 6:50 pm,
with just 15 minutes left in the launch window.
The Hot Bird 5 will be used by the European company Eutelsat
to television, radio, and other services for Europe. It will replace
the older Eutelsat 2F-1 satellite.
Sea Launch License Reinstated, First Launch in March
The U.S. State Department reinstated the export license for
Boeing's Sea Launch program Wednesday, September 30, more than two
months after it was suspended on allegations of the improper transfer
of information to Russian and Ukrainian partners.
Less than two weeks later, Boeing announced that the first Sea
Launch mission would take place in March 1999, with the launch of a
dummy payload.
The license was reinstated after Boeing paid a $10 million
fine. The company said that part of the fine was suspended so the
money would be used internally to support export compliance measures.
The State Department suspended Boeing's export license July 27
after the company admitted it had not followed proper procedures
regarding the exchange of technical information with Russians and
Ukrainians.
The project's first launch was to be of a Hughes HS 702
communications satellite for PanAmSat, but Boing announced OCtober 12
that the first launch will be of a dummy payload that will resemble an
HS 702.
"We are proceeding with preparations to being Sea Launch
online and this will be accomplished through the demonstration
launch," Sea Launch president Allen B. Ashby said. "While Sea Launch
has revised its payload for the first launch, the company is committed
to meeting the requirements of its customers."
Boeing is the lead partner on Sea Launch, a project to launch
rockets from a floating platform in the Pacific Ocean. The project
uses a Zenit 2 booster provided by KB Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of the
Ukraine, an upper stage developed by RSC Energia of Russia, and a
launch platform and command ship built by Norway's Kvaerner Maritime.
Boeing serves as the project integrator and operates Sea Launch's home
port in Long Beach, California.
Project participants believe the system will be a way to
economically launch large communications satellites. By launching in
equatorial waters in the Pacific, the Zenit booster can get the
maxmimum kick from the Earth's rotation, allowing it to loft larger
payloads.
*** Policy ***
Congress Approves Commercial Space Bill
The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Monday, October
5, a conference report on previously-approved legislation that should
make it much easier for private companies to launch spacecraft and do
space-related business, with the Senate following suit three dyas
later.
H. Res. 572 was approved by a voice vote in the House October
5. The resolution called for the approval of H.R. 1702, the
Commercial Space Act, and minor Senate amendments to the bill.
On Thursday. October 8, the Senate approved the legislation on
unanimous consent, leaving only the President's signature standing
between it and enactment. President Clinton is expected to sign the
legislation.
H.R. 1702 passed in the House last fall and was approved by
the Senate in late July. The bill covers a number of aspects of
commercial space efforts, from the licensing of reusable launch
vehicles to the purchase by the government of commercial launch
services and scientific data.
The bill gives the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the
authority to license the reentry of reusable launch vehicles. The FAA
currently has the authority to license launches, but not reentries.
The ability to issue launch and reentry licenses was seen by
many analysts as the key section of the bill. With new reusable launch
vehicles being developed by private industry, such regulation is
critical to permit them to be launched from the United States.
In one case, Kistler Aerospace, developer of the K-1 reusable
launch vehicle, has planned to launch from Australia instead of the
United States, thanks to a regulatory environment more conducive to
commercial space ventures. Other launch firms have also considered
offshore launch sites.
One aspect missing from the final version of the bill is
legislation regarding licensing of remote sensing. This subject had
become sensitive as some members of Congress feared loosening licenses
on remote sensing satellites could endanger the security of the United
States and its allies, particularly Israel.
"The State Department kept pushing for even more authority
than they have now," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chair of the
space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, "so rather than
give them that authority and make life harder for our remote sensing
industry, we decided simply to strike title II [remote sensing] from
the bill, and say, we will come back and talk about that issue on
another day."
Congress Approves NASA Budget
The U.S. Congress approved earlier this month NASA's 1999
budget, increasing its budget by $200 million from the Clinton
Administration's first request and making a number of administrative
changes, including a new name for a NASA field center.
H.R. 4194, the appropriations bill for the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs, as well as
independent agencies like NASA, was approved by the House October 5
and the Senate October 8, after a conference committee ironed out
differences between the two versions of the bill.
The bill has been sent on to President Clinton for his
signature, but that has been delayed while efforts by the Democratic
administration and the Republican-controlled Congress to iron out an
overall budget accord are underway.
H.R. 4194 includes $13.665 billion for NASA in 1999, $200
million more than first requested. The space agency received $13.638
billion in 1998 and $13.7 billion in 1997.
Human space flight, which includes the space shuttle and
International Space Station, will receive $5.48 billion in 1999, $200
million less than in 1998 and $30 million less than what the Clinton
Administration requested. The space station will be fully funded in
1999 at $2.27 billion, while the space shuttle program gets $3.059
billion, slightly less than requested but about $100 million more than
in 1998.
Space, Aeronautics, and Technology, the section of NASA that
does research and development and funds space science missions, will
get $5.654 billion in 1999, nearly $200 million more than requested
and $100 million more than in 1998.
A number of specific projects got funding increases beyond
what was oringally requested. The Mars Surveyor 2001 program got a
$20 million boost, which may be enough to include a Sojourner-like
rover on the lander component of that spacecraft. The Next Generation
Space Telescope, space solar power research, and near-Earth asteroid
tracking programs also got funding boosts.
Technology projects also got funding boosts. Congress
directed $20 million to be spent on NASA's contribution to the
Military Space Plane program, while liquid flyback boosters and hybrid
propulsion also got funding incerases.
The spending bill also included a number of administrative
measures. Notably, the bill calls on NASA to rename the Lewis
Research Center in Cleveland to the "John Glenn Research Center at
Lewis Field", after the retiring senator and former astronaut who will
be flying on STS-95 at the end of October.
H.R. 4194 also restricts NASA from spending funds from other
projects on the space station, as members of Congress signal their
disapproval with how the project is being managed. The bill also
calls on Congress to separate space station funding from other
programs anmd present it in a separate account starting in fiscal year
2000.
However, the final version of the bill removed a provision
inserted into the House version that would have prevented NASA from
spending money researching the Triana spacecraft, a controversial
Earth-observing mission conceived and promoted by Vice President Al
Gore.
On 40th Anniversary, NASA Looks Ahead
On the 40th anniversary of the creation of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the administrator of the space
agency and outside experts predicted -- to varying degrees -- a future
where NASA and private industry worked together far more closely.
During Congressional hearings Thursday, October 1, 40 years to
the day after NASA was founded by an act of Congress, NASA
Administrator Dan Goldin and other witnesses looked ahead to what NASA
can and should do in the next 40 years.
Those testifying noted that NASA, an agency born of Cold War
rivalries and tensions, must reinvent itself as a research and
development organization and a catalyst for commercial space
development.
In his testimony, Goldin described a future scenario where
NASA efforts have revolutionized high-speed air travel, established
human outposts in space near Mars, and launched robotic problems into
interstellar space.
NASA would be able to achieve this vision, Goldin said, by
transferring as much operational work as possible to the private
sector, allowing NASA to focus its efforts and resources on more
risky, but higher-payoff, projects and research.
"It is my hope that within ten years, NASA will have
transferred all low Earth orbit operations and infrastructure to the
private sector," Goldin said. "We will then be able to focus our human
and financial resources on pushing the frontiers of science and
advancing technology."
NASA also needs the "sustained, bi-partisan advocacy that has
characterized Congressional support for NASA for the past four
decades," Goldin added. "To earn this support, we intend to continue
to do what we say were going to do and honor our commitments to the
Administration and Congress."
Pete Conrad, a former astronaut and current chairman and CEO
of Universal Space Lines, outlined four roles for NASA and the federal
government in the future of space. Conrad believed that governement
should encourage and support science, foster long-term high-risk
technology development, defend the nation's interests in space, and
encourage the growth of commercial space efforts.
For the final goal, Conrad said government should purchase
both launch services and science data from private companies and do
technology development in the form of X-vehicles. Congress also needs
to pass incentives to support the commercial space industry.
"NASA should be the leading advocate of change and the
transition to a primarily commercial space industry," Conrad said.
"Nonetheless, the real change is up to Congress."
"We have only scratched the surface on the possibilities for
space commerce," Pat Dasch, executive director of the National Space
Society, noted in written testimony. "NASA needs be more aggressive in
laying the groundwork for commercial space enterprises."
Not everyone agrees on the degree of action needed to develop
commercial space. Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier
Foundation, told Congress that far more radical change is needed
since, despite all the success of NASA to date, "you and I and our
children [have] little more chance of being able to go into space and
participate in creating this dream than we had at its beginning."
Tumlinson agreed with Goldin that NASA needs to get out of
near-Earth operations. However, Tumlinson offered far more radical
suggestions, including turning the shuttle over to private operators
and commercializing the International Space Station "as soon as
possible."
Whatever course NASA chooses to pursue, it will require a
well-defined guiding vision, wrote Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch,
in written testimony. "I am not certain just what America's guiding
vision for the exploration of space should be," Cowing said. "All I
know is that we are in desperate need of one."
*** Science ***
RTG Heat May Account for Anomalous Spacecraft Acceleration
An unusual acceleration towards the Sun observed in the
trajectories of several spacecraft may be explained not by exotic new
physics but by the radiation of waste heat from the spacecraft's power
systems, according to one physicist.
In a paper submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters,
Jonathan Katz, a physics professor at Washington University in St.
Louis, explained how the emission of thermal radiation from the
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) on Pioneers 10 and 11
and the Ulysses spacecraft could explain why the spacecraft appeared
to be slowing down.
RTGs work by converting the heat from the decay of radioactive
materials into electricity. This process is not 100 percent
efficient, so much of the heat from the decay is radiated into space
at infrared wavelengths.
This energy is radiated into space evenly in all directions,
so it imparts no net force on the spacecraft. However, some of the
infrared radiation is reflected off the back of the high-gain antenna
of each spacecraft, imparting a small net force in the opposite
direction.
Since the spacecraft are usually oriented such that the
antenna is pointed towards the Earth (and essentially towards the Sun
when the spacecraft are at great distances from the Earth), the force
is oriented towards the Sun, creating a small acceleration of the
spacecraft towards the Sun.
According to Katz the engineering data on the spacecraft would
create a force in qualitative agreement with that needed to explain
the acceleration of the spacecraft, but detailed modeling of the
spacecraft is needed to verify it.
If correct, Katz's explanation would solve a problem first
raised last month by a team of scientists from JPL and Los Alamos, who
found that the Pioneer 10 and 11 and Ulysses spacecraft all appeared
to be slowing down, for no known reason. The acceleration on the
spacecraft was minuscule -- about 10 billionths of the acceleration
created by the Earth's gravity -- but its existence opened the
possibility that some new physical effect was at work.
Katz, who read about the anomalous accelerations in a preprint
of a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, said he became
intrigued by the "provocative" implications of the work and decided to
investigate further. "It was obvious they had not appreciated that
the waste heat was many times the electrical power, and that a small
asymmetry in its radiation could explain their effect," Katz said.
Katz's normal line of research focuses on gamma-ray bursts and
soft-gamma repeaters, but he said he likes to venture into different
fields, from seismology to hydrodynamics, to explore interesting
problems. "I am interested in unsolved problems in science," he said.
"They are a lot more fun than problems which are mostly understood!"
Scientists Study Stormy Worlds
The weather on a number of worlds in the solar system is
decidedly stormy, from Jupiter's giant storms to cloud systems on
smaller moons, scientists reported this week.
Planetary scientists gathering at the annual meeting of the
Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society
in Madison, Wisconsin, reported on a number of storms and weather
systems in the planets and moons of the outer solar system, from the
merger of two storms on Jupiter to cloud formations on Saturn's moon
Titan.
Astronomers witnessed a rare event earlier this year when two
long-lived storms unexpectedly merged into a larger one. Two of the
three "white ovals" observed in a band of Jupiter's southern
hemisphere for over fifty years merged into a single storm as large as
the Earth itself.
"The newly-merged white oval is the strongest storm in our
solar system, with the exception of Jupiter's 200-year-old 'Great Red
Spot' storm," said Glenn Orton, a planetary scientist at JPL. "This
may be the first time humans have ever observed such a large
interaction between two storm systems."
The two ovals, dubbed "BC" and "DE", likely merged early this
year, although the exact date is uncertain since the planet is not
monitored continuously.
Amy Simon, a planetary scientist at New Mexico State
University, explained that the sudden stop of the BC storm put into
motion a series of events that led to the merger. With BC stopped,
other smaller storms in that band stopped behind it. Another large
white oval, "FA", merged with the smaller storms, while BC and DE
eventually moved together.
The merged storm, named "BE", appears to be undergoing a
transition, Orton said, as the storm appears to be slightly colder
than its surroundings and is opaque at some wavelengths of infrared
light. "The oval may have generated a thick cloud system which
obscured the downwelling" of material normally seen in such storms,
Orton said.
Other scientists have noticed that Jupiter's low-pressure
regions, associated with some storms, are also associated with
clusters of lightning seen by the Galileo spacecraft.
The storms spawn bright clouds that appear similar to large
thunderstorms on Earth, explained Andrew Ingersoll, a planetary
science professor at Caltech. "We even caught one of these bright
clouds on the day side and saw it flashing away on the night side less
than two hours later," he said.
The process that generates the lightning on Jupiter is not
well-understood, though. "Models of terrestrial lightning suggest
that to build up electrical charge, both liquid water and ice have to
be present," Ingersoll said. "Rain requires a relatively wet Jupiter,
and that's a controversial subject."
The Galileo probe dropped into Jupiter's atmosphere in
December 1995 detected far less water than expected. Ingersoll and
other scientists believe that the probe may have hit a dry spot in the
planet's atmosphere.
Jupiter is not the only outer solar system planet with a
dynamic atmosphere. University of Wisconsin scientists, using images
from the Hubble Space Telescope and the ground-based NASA Infrared
Telescope Facility, have found more clouds in Neptune's atmosphere
than seen in other observations in the recent past.
Cloud patterns have been seen on Neptune since the Voyager 2
encounter in 1989, but the clud patters have been remarkably dynamic,
chaning from year to year. "The character of Neptune is different
from what it was at the time of Voyager," said Wisconsin's Larry
Sromovsky. "The planet seems stable, yet different."
The cloud patters on Neptune are unusual since energy from the
Sun drives the weather on planets like the Earth. Neptune, being 30
times farther from the Sun that the Earth, receives 1/900th the solar
energy as the Earth.
The energy that powers Neptune's cloud patters likely comes
from internal heat, although the exact process is not fully
understood. "It's an efficient weather machine compared to Earth,"
Sromovsky said. "It seems to run on almost no energy."
Similar clouds have also been seen in infrared images of
Uranus taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Erich Karkoschka of the
University of Arizona took the images, which he and colleagues are
analyszing to understand the wind patterns and clear spots in the
atmosphere.
The giant planets are not the only bodies in the outer solar
system with dynamic weather. A team of astronomers led by Caitlin
Griffith of Northern Arizona University reported at the conference on
obsrevations of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, which has an atmosphere
denser than the Earth's.
Griffith and colleagues, who observed Saturn for over 10
nights at a telescope atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii, found unusual readings
on two of the nights. They explained those observations by clouds
that covered about 10 percent of the planet from an altitude of 15
kilometers (9 miles) above the surface. By comparison, about 30-70
percent of the Earth is cloud-covered at any time.
These clouds are different from the global haze that obscures
the surface. What the clouds are made of and how they are created and
destroyed has yet to be understood.
Hubble Glimpses Distant Galaxies
Astronomers using an infrared camera on the Hubble Space
Telescope have discovered new galaxies thought to be the among the
most distant objects yet known.
A team of astronomers combined a set of long-exposure images
taken with Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrograph
(NICMOS) instrument and compared them to visible-light images of the
same region taken by Hubble.
The astronomers believe that these new objects are more
distant than those seen in the visible images, as the redshift caused
by the expansion of the universe makes more distant objects invisible
in normal light but visible at longer infrared wavelengths. A number
of the objects discovered had colors consistent with galaxies too
distant to be observable in the visible-light images.
The most distant objects are thought to be up to 12 billion
light years away, making them some of the most distant objects
observed. The exact distance depends on the cosmological model used
to describe the nature of the universe.
"NICMOS has parted the dark curtain that previously blocked
our view of very distant objects and revealed a whole new cast of
characters," said Rodger I. Thompson of the University of Arizona.
"We now have to study them to find out who, what and where they are."
Such studies will have to wait until a new generation of
powerful, advanced telescopes, are built, because the objects are so
dim as to make detailed studies of them impractical even with Hubble.
"This is just our first tentative glimpse into the very remote
universe," says Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories. "What we
see may be the first stages of galaxy formation. But the objects are
so faint that their true nature can only be explored with the advanced
telescopes of the future."
Such telescopes would include the Next Generation Space
Telescope (NGST), a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. Proposed
for launch in 2007, the NGST would feature a mirror 4-8 meters
(13.1-26.2 feet) in diameter and optimized for observations at
infrared wavelengths. Studies of distant galaxies is one of the key
missions of the telescope.
*** CyberSpace ***
Brian's Space Hotlist
Brian's Space Hotlist is a collection of hundreds of links to quality
space information. The site is intelligently organized into a number
of topics, and annotations make it clear what each site listed is
about. This is certainly one of the better lists of space links on
the Web.
http://www.ssl.umd.edu/space/
NASA Watch
NASA Watch is the leading source on the Web for unofficial news about
NASA. From the latest in rumors about the International Space Station
to "Worm Watch" -- a search for NASA's old "worm" logo on agency Web
sites and elsewhere -- NASA Watch keeps people both within and outside
the space agency up to date on the latest "real" news about NASA
affairs. The recognition for the NASA Watch site here is long
overdue.
http://www.reston.com/nasa/watch.html
Understanding the Leonid Meteor Storms
In November the Leonid meteor shower will put on another light show in
the night skies, and the intensity of the 1998 and/or 1999 storms will
be the highest since the dramatic 1966 Leonid shower. While it will
make a nice display from here on the ground, the possibility of a
serious storm is a concern for satellites in orbit, who could be
"sandblasted" or even fatally damaged by the shower. This site,
created by The Aerospace Corporation, explores the dangers of the
Leonids and what can be done to protect satellites.
http://www.aero.org/leonid/index.html
Space Jobs
If you like space a lot, why not try and find a space-related job?
The Space Jobs Web site is an excellent way to do this, with its
listing of positions in aerospace engineering, science, computer
programming, and other fields at a wide range of companies. You can
also subscribe to get the latest job postings e-mailed to you as soon
as they're added. This is a great resource if you're looking to move
into, or change jobs within, the space field.
http://www.spacejobs.com/
*** Space Capsules ***
SpaceViews Event Horizon
October 19 Atlas 2A launch of the Navy UFO-F9 comsat from Cape
Canaveral, Florida
October 21 Ariane 5 launch od the MaqSat-3 dummy satellite and
Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator from Kourou, French
Guiana
October 22 Pegasus XL launch of SCD-1 Brazilian environmental
satellite and NASA Wing Glove experiment off the
coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida
October 25 Delta 2 launch of Deep Space 1 and SEDSAT-1 from Cape
Canaveral, Florida
October 28 Soyuz launch of the Progress M-40 cargo spacraft from
Baikonur, Kazakhstan
October 29 Launch of space shuttle Discovery on mission STS-95
from Kennedy Space Center, Florida
October 30 Long March launch of the Feng Yun 1C satellite from
Taiyuan, China
October 31 Delta 2 launch of five Iridium spacecraft from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
December 2-3 NSS's "Property Rights and Commercial Space
Development" meeting, Washington, DC
Other News
University Astrobiology Program: The University of Washington will
become the first university to create a graduate program in
astrobiology, bringing together students and professors from a wide
range of disciplines, the university announced this month. The
program, scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999, will provide a broad
interdisciplinary look at the various fields involved in the study of
possible life on Mars, Europa, and other worlds. Graduate students
participating in the program will earn degrees in one of 11 fields,
from aeronautics to history. Students will earn an endorsement noting
an emphasis in astrobiology along with their traditional degree.
"Astrobiology students will have to learn rigorously as well as more
broadly than most other science graduate students," said Conway Leovy,
an atmospheric sciences professor at the university and part of the
astrobiology program.
Sensenbrenner Introduces Space Station Act: House Science Committee
chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced legislation last week
designed to remove Russia from the "critical path" of space station
development. H.R. 4820, the "Save the International Space Station
Act", would cap space station costs and prevent NASA from sending
additional payments to Russia without Congressional approval, as well
as require NASA to develop a contingency plan if Russia cannot meet
its space station obligations. The bill is unlikely to receive
serious consideration before Congress adjourns, but may serve as the
basis for similar legislation when the new Congress convenes in 1999.
Lunar Giveaway Planned: New York-based Applied Space Resources (ASR),
the company planning the first commercial lunar sample return mission
announced this month that it will give nearly half of its planned
return payload to scientists at no charge, pending the results of a
"Lunar Challenge". If 500,000 "Lunar Time Capsules" -- up to three
pages of text and graphics etched onto nickel disks flown on the lunar
spacecraft -- are purchased, the company will give away 5 kg (11 lbs.)
of lunar samples to science for free. The company also said it will
give way 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) worth of experiment space on the spacecraft
to a worthwhile experiment that has not been able to fly to the Moon
yet. The remaining 9 kg (19.8 lbs.) of experiment space will be sold
for $5 million per kilogram. The company's Lunar Retriever mission,
planned for launch in August 2001, will land in the Mare Nectaris
region of the Moon and return 13 kg (28.6 lbs.) of samples from the
Moon at a total cost of $50 million.
Ask John Glenn: The National Space Society is providing members of the
general public with an opportunity to ask questions of once-and-future
astronaut John Glenn. Visitors to the NSS's "Ask an Astronaut" Web
site (http://www.nss.org/askastro) can submit their questions to Glenn
to be answered at a future date, and read questions he answered at a
previous appearance two years earlier. Also planned for the launch is
a live Webcast and online chats.
=========
This has been the October 15, 1998, issue of SpaceViews Update.
SpaceViews Update is also availble on the World Wide web from the
SpaceViews home page:
http://www.spaceviews.com/
or via anonymous FTP from ftp.seds.org:
/pub/info/newsletters/spaceviews/update/981015.txt
For editorial questions and article submissions for SpaceViews or
Spaceviews Update, contact the editor, Jeff Foust, at jeff@spaceviews.com.
For questions about the SpaceViews mailing list, please contact
spaceviews-approval@spaceviews.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____ | "SpaceViews" (tm) -by Boston Chapter
// \ // | of the National Space Society (NSS)
// (O) // | Dedicated to the establishment
// \___// | of a spacefaring civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
-
- To NOT receive future newsletters, send this message to our NEW address:
- To: majordomo@SpaceViews.com
- Subject: anything
- unsubscribe SpaceViews
-
- E-Mail List services provided by Northern Winds: www.nw.net
-
- SpaceViews (tm) is published for the National Space Society (NSS),
- copyright (C) Boston Chapter of National Space Society
- www.spaceviews.com www.nss.org (jeff@spaceviews.com)
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:24:54 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["970" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 970
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09867
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09845
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23980
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:33 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdfb8c$b8102160$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <199810191250.NAA19362@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:23 -0500
> I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts:
> first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out,
> practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are
> at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left
> to work of being more fit...
> I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts
> (using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars,
> especialy close ones. I consider it silly,
> equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates
> of our solar system.
Ahh, a light dawns...quite correct. A typical phased array radar system puts
out a sufficiently collimated narrow spectrum beam to be seen from a LONG
ways away. Thankfully, at the moment most are being used in frequencies
which don't even penetrate atmosphere, but not all of them. A collimated,
narrow band beam is quite different and actually more powerful than the
nuclear explosion in my example and MIGHT be seen as far away as fifty light
years.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:24:54 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["970" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 970
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09887
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09866
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23996
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:36 -0500
Message-ID: <000401bdfb8c$b9bce700$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <199810191231.NAA19306@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:26 -0500
> > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
> > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
> > /¯\_/¯\
> > ´ >-2 waves
> > \_/¯\_/
> >
> Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line,
> you can only to put them side by side.
> Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways,
> instead of eliminating each other.
First of all, I believe all of these designs use some sort of shock absorber
system, which should help a lot. Second, whether or not you could cancel
that way is going to depend upon how large the impulse is and how far from
the center line each engine is mounted. Too large an impulse or too far from
the center line and Zenon is right, they won't cancel.
If need be, you could go to even more engines timed to produce the
following:
_ _ _ _ _
/ / / / / \
If they are grouped close enough to the center of the ship it should be
possible to reduce the vibration to reasonable levels this way.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:25:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["421" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:14" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 421
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09806
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09728
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23945
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:24 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdfb8c$b35187e0$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981019182048.00838d40@mail.u-net.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:14 -0500
> >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a
> one-way mission?
>
> I completely disagree.
> how do you sell this to the media?
Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can be
sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that.
> You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably
> the reason their taxes are now 30% higher.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:25:17 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1004" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "13:17:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1004
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09826
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09799
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p216.gnt.com [204.49.89.216])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA23958
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:27 -0500
Message-ID: <000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:17:18 -0500
>
> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
> that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
> have FTL particles at all.
Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking about
evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers.
( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered
the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons
(faster than light particles).
Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
isn't possible.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:36:53 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["628" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "11:30:08" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "14" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 628
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19682
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19629;
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13867.34096.828768.943444@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd>
References: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
<000101bdfb8c$b4a8da80$0100a8c0@halberd>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
L. Parker writes:
> Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
> evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
> there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
> isn't possible.
Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic
forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
Travel at the speed of light is possible -- for photons.
From VM Mon Oct 19 11:37:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3693" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "19:20:42" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "72" "Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3693
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA19415
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA19326
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.shealiak.nl (dc2-modem666.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.154])
by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22965
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:29:46 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019192042.0068ef7c@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <5549f855.36296094@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:20:42 +0100
Kelly,
>>Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't
>>happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria.
>>And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens
>>that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not
>>just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would
>>hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's
>>atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the
>>spacesuit from becoming a balloon.
>
>Surprized you heard about the 'grays'. That style of alien sighting is only
>common in the U.S. (other areas of the world have different cultural
>preferences) europeansd generally report Nordic looking ET's. ;)
The NL imports a multitude of US movies, series and info-programmes.
>Anyway quock check shows the aliens are B.S. As to the idea the
contamination
>won't happen without quatities of microbes, thats not really true. Microbes
>reproduce. So if one hits a fertile zone, you quickly get quantities.
If there were no other bacteria, you would be right.
I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on Earth
were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have
overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the fittest
and most numerous for that particular spot.
The likelyhood of survival of a few bacteria that are not (yet) adapted to
that spot is therefore small. Assuming the spot is suitable for the new
bacteria, they'd need to be much stronger to get the overhand while being
attacked by a majority that has the advantage of being adapted best to the
particular spot.
>>====================================================================
>>Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters
>>of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of
>>the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially
>>compensate for this thermal inconveniance.
>
>That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive
>(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a
>feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against.
Survival is something very different from thriving. I doubt that there are
bacteria that can thrive in a large range of temperatures. Anyhow, any
divergence from the optimum temperature for the hositle bacteria will give
the human body an advantage.
Our body can sense a very large scale of alien (not necessarily
extraterrestrial) substances. As far as I know it is not so that our body
has to learn what is alien, it merely checks if it isn't familiar to the
body itself. As soon as a substance is strange, the body will try to attack
it right away. I suppose the body has standard procedures for substances
that it doesn't have encountered before.
>>Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding
>>for the bacteria or small organisms any easier.
>>In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can
>>cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the
>>body itself in response to the intruder.
>
>Again, only if its something te body knows to attack. Many things will kill
>us without triggering any defensive measure.
No, some creatures just can quickly enough find spots where our body's
immune system is very ineffective or hardly notices it. Other substances
like poisons are just attacking too fast for our body the react against (if
they are in large enough quantities). In general relative small quantities
won't make much of a chance.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2898" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "12:52:49" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "60" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2898
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21158
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21089
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dante34.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante34.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.48])
by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA51680 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:50 -0700
Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost)
by dante34.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id MAA69760 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:49 -0700
In-Reply-To: <13867.29523.853648.962966@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9810191240170.55070-100000@dante34.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
From: "N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Steve,
There's a good letter on the Alcubierre drive at
<http://www.iop.org/PEL/article/cq14011l1/full/>
if you've got the mental energy to try to understand it. (not on a Monday)
As for "regions of negative energy density" i believe they are referring
to regions where the ambient quantum noise is less than that of the
vacuum, called the "zero point," similar to the region twixt a pair of
Casmir plates. but i also recall that this had something to do with a
"false vacuum" But my memory's bad and the above is probably mixed
up somehow. Anyway, the link is the important thing, enjoy.
Best Regards,
Nels Lindberg
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a design
> > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star Trek
> > technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a bubble of
> > space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects).
>
> The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in
> order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy
> density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then.
>
> > Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence
> > faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling).
>
> None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all.
> "Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to
> communicate information.
>
> > Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then say
> > you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to faster
> > then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'.
>
> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
> that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
> have FTL particles at all.
>
> > Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if
> > they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a
> > blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it. (The
> > theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.)
>
> General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
> FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
> travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
> could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
> implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
> incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
> or a "warp bubble".
>
From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["776" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "16:10:44" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "22" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 776
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16956
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA16944
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG34K1>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:10:45 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF321@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:10:44 -0400
> ----------
> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 1998 11:29 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> Thats a good idea, we could also post parts in our personal account
> spaces.
> (I once offered to put most of the stuff I worked up for LIT on one of
> my AOL
> accounts.) I do worry about sections disappering as people come and
> go from
> the group or change accounts thou.
>
> Kelly
>
>
Ah, yes, the one flaw in the plan.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["579" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "16:11:20" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@playlink.com" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 579
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17489
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.actionworld.com ([206.41.27.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17378
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.actionworld.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
id <S6GG34KJ>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:11:21 -0400
Message-ID: <890A946BA92CD211B3E2006008D078950EF322@mail.actionworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:11:20 -0400
> ----------
> From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:09 AM
> Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
> any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
>
>
Hm, good question!
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine david@playlink.com
Director of Development http://www.playlink.com/
PlayLink (212) 387-8200
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
From VM Mon Oct 19 14:12:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["361" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "21:49:31" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "10" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 361
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09215
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA09195
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (daishi) [195.102.195.93]
by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2)
id 0zVMCI-0003IJ-00; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:46:35 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981019214931.0091f100@mail.u-net.com>
X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <000001bdfb8c$b35187e0$0100a8c0@halberd>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981019182048.00838d40@mail.u-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>,
"Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:49:31 +0100
>> I completely disagree.
>> how do you sell this to the media?
>
>Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can be
>sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that.
I can't imaigne "Hey, we're sending a couple hundred of our best people a
few trillion miles away from Earth, to die" being sold as anything.
From VM Mon Oct 19 16:59:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["438" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "18:35:03" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 438
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12556
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12496
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p244.gnt.com [204.49.91.4])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA08439
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:06 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdfbb9$19b5ac60$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19981019214931.0091f100@mail.u-net.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:03 -0500
> I can't imaigne "Hey, we're sending a couple hundred of our best people a
> few trillion miles away from Earth, to die" being sold as anything.
Oh sure, I can see it now,
(fade in)
Centauri Sam hacking his way through an alien jungle, fighting off horrible
beasts (he wins of course)
(fade to star-filled screen)
3D gold logo across screen: "The few, the brave, the scouts..."
They'll be volunteering by the thousands. <G>
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 16:59:20 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["584" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "18:35:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 584
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12609
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12518
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p244.gnt.com [204.49.91.4])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA08455
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:16 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdfbb9$204a3e60$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <13867.34096.828768.943444@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:16 -0500
> Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
> that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
> weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
> and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic
> forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
>
> Travel at the speed of light is possible -- for photons.
I don't remember that particular discussion, but he is probably right about
it being weird. Isaac hasn't been around much, is he still subscribed?
Oops, well yes, photons do propagate at the speed of light.
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 16:59:45 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["344" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "18:35:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 344
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12724
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12607
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p244.gnt.com [204.49.91.4])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA08464
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:22 -0500
Message-ID: <000401bdfbb9$257e5600$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To: <199810191822.TAA19651@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:35:22 -0500
> That is, you are afraid the geologist will perish
> before he finds what is going on?
Maybe before he even realizes something is going on...
Okay, I'm against sending robots alone, but I have no problem with sending
them along with a human crew. If something is going to get dissolved to
jelly, I would rather it was made of silicon!
Lee
From VM Mon Oct 19 17:13:35 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1394" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "16:59:44" "-0700" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "42" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1394
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27726
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from send104.yahoomail.com (send104.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27704
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19981019235944.20981.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com>
Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send104.yahoomail.com; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:59:44 PDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/18/98 10:12:28 AM, rmarlin@network-one.com
wrote:
>
> >> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
> >> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
> >> >
> >
> >I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and
I don't
> think
> >it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is
acceleration and
> >deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If
you are
> sending
> >people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over
twice the
> >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way
mission?
>
> You miss the point. We can't send colonists. To do that we would
need a
> selfsustaining mini civilization which is WAY beyond anything we
could or
> would do. It would technically be virtually impossible, at least
requireing a
> population tens to hundreds of times larger.
>
> The debate isn't between sending a scouting mission or sending a
colony. The
> debate is between sending a say 8 year survey mission and returning
them. Or
> sending a 8 year survey mission and leaving them there to die.
About 28 years! Woah, you actually have to get an ecosystem working if
you wanna have food. Oh, well anyone's got other ideas, than this??
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From VM Mon Oct 19 17:28:55 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["344" "Mon" "19" "October" "1998" "17:22:50" "-0700" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Whoops!" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 344
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14249
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from send1d.yahoomail.com (send1d.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.48])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA14243
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19981020002250.17781.rocketmail@send1d.yahoomail.com>
Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send1d; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:22:50 PDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Whoops!
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Everyone! If you got a reply from me, it's an error: I reply to the
personal address instead of replying to the majordomo...
I apologize for any incovenient.
==
Vive le Québec libre... dé souverainistes!!!
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From VM Tue Oct 20 09:44:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["669" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "12:06:23" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 669
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA06300
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA06291
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20508 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:54:32 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810201054.LAA20508@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHMC3L>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:03:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:06:23 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A West [SMTP:andrew@hmm.u-net.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:50 PM
> To: L. Parker; Starship Design
> Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
>
>
> >> I completely disagree.
> >> how do you sell this to the media?
> >
> >Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can
> be
> >sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that.
>
> I can't imaigne "Hey, we're sending a couple hundred of our best people a
> few trillion miles away from Earth, to die" being sold as anything.
>
Just need to get one of Bill Clinton's or Tony Blair's spin doctors on the
case ;-)
From VM Tue Oct 20 09:44:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1865" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "21:48:51" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "43" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1865
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA11763
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA11757
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne2p34.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.162]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA07962 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:48:19 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <004e01bdfc1f$9fd89940$a2fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:48:51 +1000
Hi Group,
Haven't been on for a while...
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Parker <lparker@cacaphony.net>
To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 1998 4:26
Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
>>
>> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>> that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
>> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>> have FTL particles at all.
>
>Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking
about
>evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers.
>( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered
>the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons
>(faster than light particles).
>
>Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
>evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
>there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
>isn't possible.
>
>Lee
>
>
Can you dig up the reference? John Cramer, in his Alternate View column in
"Analog" talked about tachyon neutrinos as a possible drive system - not for
FTL, but as a reactionless drive. Coupled to a suitable power source a
coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
Universe. A convenient power source would be either a GUT power-core or some
sort of ZPE system, both of which can produce infinite power. Has anyone
checked out Jack Sarfatti's site at Starship? They all think that some sort
of ZPE power system isn't too far off. Maybe by 2050?
Adam
From VM Tue Oct 20 09:44:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1998" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "22:03:42" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "50" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1998
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13632
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA13625
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne2p34.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.162]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12981; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:03:06 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <006101bdfc21$b0bae2c0$a2fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Cc: <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 22:03:42 +1000
Hi Group,
While we're on this stream...
-----Original Message-----
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Date: Monday, 19 October 1998 23:32
Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty
years
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>
>> Probably no real chance of
>> finding a planet with 1 g,
>>
>Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.
>
>> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
>>
>I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
>Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
>solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
>(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
>skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
>but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
>lower temperature variation.
>
>-- Zenon
>
Not so long ago there was an "Analog" article on the range of bio-tolerances
for various poisons that we'd find unhealthy. I suspect that by the time we
launch starships bio-modifications will be fairly easy, so we'll be able to
take ammonia, CO, CO2, cyanide, sulphur compounds and so on at quite
elevated levels. None of those chemicals is going to be hugely abundant
anyway, since they're relatively odd finds in the 250 - 320 K range for
planets we'll be visiting. There's no guarantee that we'll find planets that
are exactly Earth-like, but then our current atmosphere is only a fairly
late state of affairs. For most of Earth's history there was a
whole lot more CO2, and a bit of ammonia and methane in the early days [if
Sagan is right.]
I think a planet is habitable if it has >100 torr atmosphere and a livable
temperature range [humans have gotten on in temperatures ranging between
190K and 335K with only a few prosthetics] and relatively easy water
supplies. Who needs oxygen when you can crack CO2?
Adam
From VM Tue Oct 20 09:44:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["641" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "16:08:50" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "17" "RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 641
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17395
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17355
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA20480; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:08:50 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810201508.QAA20480@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:08:50 +0100 (MET)
> From: A West <andrew@hmm.u-net.com>
>
> >> I completely disagree.
> >> how do you sell this to the media?
> >
> >Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can be
> >sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that.
>
> I can't imaigne "Hey, we're sending a couple hundred of our best people a
> few trillion miles away from Earth, to die" being sold as anything.
>
Hey, work on your imagination!
Or else observe with scrutiny some election campaign.
Or advertisement campaign (good material on that can be found in books
on advertisement techniques, with real-life examples).
-- Zenon
From VM Tue Oct 20 09:44:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1977" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "16:58:25" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "44" "starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1977
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA14951
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14945
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA03727 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:48:18 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810201548.QAA03727@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <47WHMGH7>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:57:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:58:25 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Levine [SMTP:david@playlink.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:11 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
> > Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
> >
> > I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
> > any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
> >
> >
> Hm, good question!
A couple of thoughts on this:
(1) There haven't been nearly enough launches to allow for economies of
scale to come into effect. Whilst the launch of a spacecraft these days is
seen as "nothing special" (eg. compared to back in the 1960's), they are by
no means what I would describe as "commonplace".
There was a big fuss made by environmental groups when the shuttle first
rolled out, as it was said then that there were going to be something like
300 shuttle launches a year. The enviro groups were worried about the effect
this would have re. atmospheric pollution. As we know now, though, the
actual number of launches per year is something like an order of magnitude
lower. Maybe 300+ launches/year would have reduced launch costs...or maybe
there aren't that many launches because of the prohibitive costs and
complexity of each mission, not to mention that current lack of need for
that many launches. Chicken, egg...egg, chicken.
(2) Not enough reusability in the current designs of launch vehicles. Sure,
the shuttle is substantially reusable, but the extreme is a fully reusable
single stage-to-orbit vehicle. A spacecraft systems engineering book I've
just looked at (written in 1991) suggested that such vehicles could lower
specific launch costs into LEO to $500/kg. That's at least going (quite)some
way towards the figure of $100/lb mentioned on the list recently.
Any more comments on this?
Chris Walker
From VM Tue Oct 20 14:18:05 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3856" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "21:56:58" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "78" "starship-design: FTL and such" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3856
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16059
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA15984
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.shealiak.nl (dc2-modem1225.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.201])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA21870
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:05:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981020215658.0068f40c@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <004e01bdfc1f$9fd89940$a2fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: FTL and such
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:56:58 +0100
Adam,
>Can you dig up the reference? John Cramer, in his Alternate View column in
>"Analog" talked about tachyon neutrinos as a possible drive system - not for
>FTL, but as a reactionless drive.
Recent research has indicated that neutrinos are NOT massless. (Best guess
upto now is 0.07 eV/c^2)
I added an article from AIP (June) at the end of this letter.
Regarding plugging in values for v>c in Einstein's equations:
For some odd reason people use known formulas to extend predictions without
having ANY reason that the known formula is even slightly more valid than
any other odd equation.
So, I see no reason for Einstein's equations to be valid for values of v>c,
since there is no data available to make ANY extension more valid than an
other. Hence suggesting that we need to find imaginary mass or energy
before thinking about FTL makes little sense.
It could be just as well that no energy at all is needed for apparant
velocities larger than c. After all translation doesn't need any energy.
>Coupled to a suitable power source a
>coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
>Universe.
Any reason for a *coherent* beam? Do incoherent tachyons not transfer
momentum?
>They all think that some sort of ZPE power system isn't too far off.
They don't think that, they hope or feel that.
Timothy
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 375 June 5, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
NEUTRINO OSCILLATION HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED at
the Super-Kamiokande lab in Japan to a higher degree of certainty
than in previous experiments. Neutrinos, weakly interacting
elementary particles only detected for the first time in 1956, are
thought by some theorists to reside in a kind of schizoid existence;
that is, a neutrino would regularly transform (or oscillate) among
several alternative neutrino states, each having a slightly different
mass. Such a theory would help to explain the apparent shortfall of
neutrinos coming from the Sun. The oscillation proposition has
been tested using four neutrino sources: the Sun, Earth's
atmosphere, reactors, and particle accelerators. Some tests find
tentative but ambiguous evidence for oscillation. Today, at the
Neutrino 98 conference in Takayama Japan, the Super-Kamiokande
collaboration (comprising 100 scientists from 23 institutions in
Japan and the US) is announcing the most exacting evidence yet for
neutrino oscillation. They study neutrinos made when cosmic rays
from outer space strike the upper atmosphere. Some neutrinos,
those made overhead above Japan, travel about 20 km or so before
entering the underground detector. Other neutrinos, those made in
the atmosphere on the far side of the globe, have a travel path of
20,000 km into the detector. In either case, they create, among
other things, a high energy electron or muon, which in turn emits
a telltale cone of light (Cerenkov radiation) observed by an array of
thousands of photodetectors mounted in a tank filled with pure
water. Sorting events by electron neutrino or muon neutrino, by
high energy or lower energy, and by zenith angle (overhead
approach or through the Earth), statistical evidence for oscillation
becomes evident. A 1-GeV muon neutrino seems to oscillate every
few hundred miles. Four years ago, the same group, using a
smaller detector, reported preliminary evidence on the basis of 200
events (Physics Today, Oct 1994). The new report is based on
several thousands of events, and provides an approximate mass
difference (the test cannot render any neutrino species' mass
directly) of about 0.07 eV. Because they are so numerous in the
universe, neutrinos, with even a small mass, might play an
important role in the formation of galaxies. (See
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu:80/~jgl/nuosc_story.html)
From VM Wed Oct 21 10:03:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1674" "Tue" "20" "October" "1998" "18:55:10" "-0700" "Paul-V Khuong" "paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1674
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20379
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from send1e.yahoomail.com (send1e.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.64])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA20300
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19981021015510.20559.rocketmail@send1e.yahoomail.com>
Received: from [192.197.162.246] by send1e; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:55:10 PDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
>
> > From paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com Tue Oct 20 01:03:04 1998
> >
> > Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > zkulpa@ wrote:zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > >>Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the
word "micro".
> > > > >>For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
> > > > >>"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to
impossible
> > > > >>to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
> > > >
> > > > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
> > > > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
> > > > /¯\_/¯\
> > > > ´ >-2 waves
> > > > \_/¯\_/
> > > >
> > > Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line,
> > > you can only to put them side by side.
> > > Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways,
> > > instead of eliminating each other.
> >
> > Sure it's possible! Make the two exactly symmetrical
> > and put 'em side by side!
> >
> > like:
> > \
> > <¯= \
> > /¯ \These two should be symmetrical and work at the
> > \ /¯same time. SO, the wave is eliminated by another
> > <¯=´/ one, of exactly the same size.
> > /¯
> >
> Sorry, I do not follow your idea.
> Can you explain it more understandably?
See, you put the two engines side by side, in a way so that the two
engines are symmetrical by the center of the ship. Then, make them
fire at the same time.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From VM Wed Oct 21 10:03:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2225" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "11:28:23" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2225
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA27398
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA27381
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ost_ntsrvbrhd.bskyb.com (ost_ntsrvbrhd [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.7.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA21179 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:16:09 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <199810211016.LAA21179@ns0.sky.co.uk>
Received: by OST_NTSRVBRHD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
id <VJYTZNKJ>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:24:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id DAA27391
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
From: "Walker, Chris" <Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'Starship Design'" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:28:23 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul-V Khuong [SMTP:paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 2:55 AM
> To: Starship Design
> Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty
> years
>
> Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > From paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com Tue Oct 20 01:03:04 1998
> > >
> > > Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > zkulpa@ wrote:zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > >>Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the
> word "micro".
> > > > > >>For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
> > > > > >>"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to
> impossible
> > > > > >>to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
> > > > >
> > > > > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
> > > > > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
> > > > > /¯\_/¯\
> > > > > ´ >-2 waves
> > > > > \_/¯\_/
> > > > >
> > > > Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line,
> > > > you can only to put them side by side.
> > > > Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways,
> > > > instead of eliminating each other.
> > >
> > > Sure it's possible! Make the two exactly symmetrical
> > > and put 'em side by side!
> > >
> > > like:
> > > \
> > > <¯= \
> > > /¯ \These two should be symmetrical and work at the
> > > \ /¯same time. SO, the wave is eliminated by another
> > > <¯=´/ one, of exactly the same size.
> > > /¯
> > >
> > Sorry, I do not follow your idea.
> > Can you explain it more understandably?
> See, you put the two engines side by side, in a way so that the two
> engines are symmetrical by the center of the ship. Then, make them
> fire at the same time.
>
I don't think it's possible to build two engines that are:
(a) exactly identical
(b) fire at exactly the same time
(c) fire with the exactly same vibration characteristics (ie. frequency
response).
Sure, maybe you can reduce the vibration loading in this way, but you won't
cancel anything 100% by using a passive control system such as this.
Chris Walker
From VM Wed Oct 21 10:03:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2125" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "14:36:38" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2125
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA12053
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA11987
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 06:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA21411; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:36:38 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810211336.OAA21411@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:36:38 +0100 (MET)
> From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
>
> Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > From paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com Tue Oct 20 01:03:04 1998
> > >
> > > Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Paul-V Khuong <paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > zkulpa@ wrote:zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > >>Not because of the word "explosions", but because of the word "micro".
> > > > >>>For a starship, you need rather macro-explosions (and the big
> > > > >>>"macro" for that). For macro-explosions it will be next to impossible
> > > > >>>to reduce pulsing to mere "vibration load".
> > > > >
> > > > > Use _2_ engines: vibrations will eliminate each others:
> > > > > if you're arranging phases, it'll do like this:
> > > > > /¯\_/¯\
> > > > > ´ >-2 waves
> > > > > \_/¯\_/
> > > > >
> > > > Will not work. You cannot put such two engines in line,
> > > > you can only to put them side by side.
> > > > Then alternating explosions will rock the whole ship sideways,
> > > > instead of eliminating each other.
> > >
> > > Sure it's possible! Make the two exactly symmetrical
> > > and put 'em side by side!
> > >
> > > like:
> > > \
> > > <¯= \
> > > /¯ \These two should be symmetrical and work at the
> > > \ /¯same time. SO, the wave is eliminated by another
> > > <¯=´/ one, of exactly the same size.
> > > /¯
> > >
> > Sorry, I do not follow your idea.
> > Can you explain it more understandably?
>
> See, you put the two engines side by side, in a way so that the two
> engines are symmetrical by the center of the ship. Then, make them
> fire at the same time.
>
Can't you see that you contradict your earlier idea?
If they will fire at the same time, their explosion pulses
cannot eliminate each other in the way you proposed before.
If they will fire alternatively (as you proposed before),
because engines are side by side, the rotation
momentum from the pulses also will not cancel,
but cause the ship to rock sideways.
So either way the pulses will be fully affecting the ship.
-- Zenon Kulpa
From VM Wed Oct 21 10:03:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6439" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "16:06:04" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "150" "Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6439
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01753
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA01723
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA21505; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:06:04 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810211506.QAA21505@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:06:04 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
> >>
> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >> >>
> >> >[...]
> >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do government
> >> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring civilization
> >> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
> >> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
> >> >>
> >> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
> >> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
> >>
> >> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different. Like
> >> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space.
> >>
> >So what would you consider a start?
> >Building a viable starship from scratch?
>
> What would I consider the start of manned use of space? Commercial craft
> going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way.
> A commercial, profitable, space station. The comsats are a far bigger
> step then Apollo.
>
I do not think so. They have a little impact on the improvements of
space launching technology, while without Apollo we would know
a lot less about the space conditions, Moon history, resources,
an environment, not speaking about the necessary technology
for interplanetary ships (Voyagera, Mars & Venus probes, etc.).
> So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying).
> Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived.
>
Here I agree.
Consider that Apollo was also partially a military craft...
> >> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
> >> >> and abondon them there to die.
> >> >>
> >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
> >> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
> >> >to understand that!
> >> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
> >>
> >> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give
> >> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever
> >> after the missions over. ;)
> >>
> >I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
> >to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
> >meets the acceptability criteria.
>
> Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed.
>
> As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer.
> No, they don't count.
>
That is, you say that the individual freedem does not count?
> You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on
> camera for the ten secounds of fame.
>
First, this is not an analogy to one-way missions.
The crew for such a mission does not go
to be burned alive, nor does it go for ten seconds of fame.
Second, I do not see any resons to not allow
those your people to burn themselves.
At least, there will be several fools less,
of which the humanity can only benefit.
> Its the criteria of those that fund, and
>
But you propose to intimidate those willing
to fund one-way missions too...
> the society that supports it that counts.
> I don't know about over in your area, but in the west
> its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for a good cause.
>
Kelly, don't be silly, please. Torturing animals for whatever cause
has completely no similarity to going for a one-way mission.
> >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
> >> >interplanetary-space society.
> >>
> >> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental
> >> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
> >>
> >Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
> >already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
> >that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
> >will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
> >toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
> >(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
> >than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" -
> >hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward
> >interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.
>
> I tend to be sispicious of that. Its assumed that just because people are in
> space their society will be basically and radically different somehow. So
> far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past
> couple milenia. So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or -
> not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any
> forceable future.
>
It will be different, and possibly even basically.
The history of humankind shows that clearly -
transitions from hunter-gatherers, through nomadic herders,
agriculture settlements, merchant cities, to technological
civilization of today were mirrored with quite different social
organizations and mentality. Even now there are great
differences in mentality and attitudes between Western
and Eastern societies, despite the fair amount of homogenization.
The transition into space-inhabiting society will be an even
more radical change that all the previous ones, hence
we may expect quite new changes in social structures and attitudes,
largery unpredictable now, together with quite large differences
between Earth-bound and interplanetary societies.
> >That is not the question of "new laws".
> >Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
> >a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
> >reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
> >like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
> >Not speaking about the fact that in those times
> >there even were no fashion shows in Paris...
>
> Oh, yeah. If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that
> allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national
> geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh
> line, and not colonies.
>
Do not take my analogy too literally.
I want only to show that once some quite new trechnological
possibilities open, they are put to many different uses,
some of them quite not anticipated by their inventors
and other people of the time when they were developed.
So it will be with interplanetary space habitation technology.
-- Zenon
From VM Wed Oct 21 10:03:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5697" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "16:25:46" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "131" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5697
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10001
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA09989
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA21522; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:25:46 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810211525.QAA21522@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:25:46 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/13/98 10:34:17 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
> >>
[...]
> >> Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement.
> >>
> >Maybe not, but it will help significantly...
>
> ..it will help significantly is the understatment of the century
> in regards to Nano-tech. ;)
>
I was careful, just in case you are a skeptic on this issue... ;-)
> >> >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
> >> >habitat in space", and rather large for that.
> >> >How to build one without any prior experience?
> >> >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
> >> >that going to another star?
> >>
> >> Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate
> >> and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be.
> >>
> >But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat
> >capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years
> >(which by today's standards is close to "permanent"),
> >in complete isolation from any help from outside.
> >We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space,
> >not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability
> >and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were
> >hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems).
> >I do not think one can build a starship from scratch
> >WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually
> >working in relative isolation for tens of years
> >(or at least several years).
> >Till now we have only a little experience with habitats
> >for several people that can work for several months
> >on near-earth orbit.
>
> Leakage rates over decades are a big issue, but atmosphere and water recycling
> aer much more straight forward. I agree that we wouldn't put together and
> launch a star ship without building and testing the hab ring for a couple
> years, but testing for decades wouldn't be nessisary. No more nessisary then
> pre testing a bridge for decades before we build it and open it to the public.
>
But see, when building a bridge today, we tap hundreds of years
of experience with building bridges, their failures, etc.
But we have zero years of experience with building space habitats
of the sort needed for a starship.
> >[...]
> >> >True, but we should START going in the first place.
> >> >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
> >> >we made two steps back.
> >>
> >> Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force programs
> >> in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help pay
> >> for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have
> >> viciously defended.
> >>
> >You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
> >to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
> >all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
> >progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
> >which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
> >as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
> >as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
> >lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
> >none is preserved (even rusted).
>
> True the Sat-Vs were great heavy boosters for their day, but none could be
> built and used today (even the tech to build the parts is long gone). So all
> in all its pretty much a step that went no where, thou it did convince the
> world we could go if we wanted.
>
So you think, e.g., that the ancient art of splitting stones,
largery forgotten these days, was also a step that went nowhere?
>(But it convinced them it could only be done at collosal cost).
>
It is true. This is one of the main reasons the other states
in the world are reluctant to pursue the space technology -
the convinction that it is collosally expensive.
Though I wonder if it was due to Apollo (only).
> >> >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
> >> >(for Sagan).
> >>
> >> Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space
> >> exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment
> >> to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine
> >> for robots and science probes.
> >>
> >That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space
> >exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his
> >other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus).
> >He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that,
> >but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them.
>
> That is strange. He threw fits at space comercialization conferences, and
> almost always argued against maned programs. I can't figure it.
>
Possibly, he came to his senses finally?
There generally is a big difference in attitude towards
future of mankind between his "Cosmos" and "Pale Blue Dot".
Or maybe you confused him with someone else?
> >However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea"
> >of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly
> >USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration,
> >as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance.
> >He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead...
>
> Really, I forwarded reports related to that, and I know folks
> in ISS were never happy to have to add all te extra costs
> and hassel of adding Russia in.
>
So it seems to have been another example of miguided politics
overriding the reason...
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["891" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 891
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15205
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15157
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QOVa02316
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:41 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <bbc4750d.362e97a5@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:41 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 3:29:37 PM, david@playlink.com wrote:
>> ----------
>> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 1998 11:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
>>
>> Thats a good idea, we could also post parts in our personal account
>> spaces.
>> (I once offered to put most of the stuff I worked up for LIT on one of
>> my AOL
>> accounts.) I do worry about sections disappering as people come and
>> go from
>> the group or change accounts thou.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>>
>Ah, yes, the one flaw in the plan.
>------------------------------------------------------
>David Levine
Well you and I have been in here for about 5 years now, so I guess were safe.
We better hope the master of "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" hangs in
there. Or we could create duplicate sites. Perhaps there is a way.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1325" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:49" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1325
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15505
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15490
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RWJa02082
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:49 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <983d2cc.362e97ad@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:49 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 8:35:00 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>[...]
>> >I thought several of the tests carried out on the Mars soil samples were
>> >"dubious" at best - I remember some controversy over the tests to decide
>> >whether there were traces of bacteria in the soil - some of the tests
>> >succeeded, some failed, but some were in direct contradiction of the
>> > others..
>>
>> The contradictino was that the soil did react rapidly to the "food"
samples,
>> and the presence of sunlight which passed the criteria for bacterial and
>> photosynthetic life. But no organic mater. So after a lot of heated
debate
>> they decided the only thing that would explain it was a very chemically
>> reactive oxidizing substance in the soil that broke down even trace orgaic
>> mater. Of course others have suggested that it could be life and the
organic
>> detector wasn't sensative enough to detect it. More fearce debate.---
>>
>That shows clearly the superiority of manned exploration
>over a robotic one.
>A run-of-the-mill geologist with a hammer and a few chemicals
>in his suitcase field lab can settle the problem in ten minutes,
>and in several hours he can produce a wealth of data on the Martian
>conditions larger than all robotic crafts ever sent to Mars.
>
>-- Zenon
Very very true.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["936" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 936
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15272
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15242
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VHWa02328
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:53 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <7eb2df75.362e97b1@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:53 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 12:24:53 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote:
>>I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and I don't
>think
>>it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is acceleration and
>>deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If you are
>sending
>>people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over twice
the
>>cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way mission?
>
>I completely disagree.
>how do you sell this to the media?
>You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably
>the reason their taxes are now 30% higher.
>
>Andrew West
Assuming you don't want them to die in 30 years a one way mission would take
much upgrading over a two way. Assuming you want to be reelected (or not
skined alive) as a politician you would not send national heros to go stir
crazy and die on international TV.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4099" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "108" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4099
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15415
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15402
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OKWa02302
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:58 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <47ae6ae.362e97b6@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:58 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 8:18:01 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 1:40:52 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: David Levine <david@playlink.com>
>> >>
>> >> > From: Zenon Kulpa[SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl]
>> >> >
>> >> > And there is a big bootstrap problem:
>> >> > space mining is impractical without developed human
>> >> > space infrastructure, and building such infrastructure
>> >> > is impossible without space mining...
>> >> >
>> >> And that's where space-tourism comes in.
>> >>
>> >Or something other we may not yet foresee.
>> >Usually sooner or later something surfaces.
>> >Space tourism may, but it may not, mostly because
>> >it will be rather short-distance (at most to the Moon)
>> >until advances fuelled by other areas of space exploration
>> >make the trip to, say, Mars at least no harder
>> >than trip to low orbit today.
>>
>> Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down to current trans
>> ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up in accessing and using
space.
>>
>I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
>any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
They are to few to spawn a large enough market.
>> >Hence I think that bulding a permanent base on Mars,
>> >even by a governemnt agency, will be a good step in
>> >this direction. Necessity to sustain people there
>> >for years will drive advances in cheaper propulsion
>> >systems and other advanced technologies, opening
>> >this area for space tourism and early asteroid-mining
>> >assessment missions.
>>
>> Government programs like this or our arctic and deep sea bases tend to have
>> little significant impact. They have no reason to develop or use practical
>> systems, and large reason to do flashy but useless projects for political
>> reasons.
>>
>Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data
>on the conditions there, necessary to design and build
>further non-governemnt facilities and colonies.
>Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment
>needed for the private exploration of Mars.
Ah ha. Somehow I don't think we need to spend 100's of billions to figure out
ways to save tens of billions.
>The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
>is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
>(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
>pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
>or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
>There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
>advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
>equally "protected" from human enterprise.
Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater. If
there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
predisesors. The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother. So
Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea labs
have all been pulled out or sold.
>
>On the other hand, of course I would like better
>the first Mars Base to be build privately by Mars Society
>& private companies (possibly supported by government
>throuh the "Mars Prize" system)...
>But just in case, let NASA try this too -
>some competition may be healthy here.
>
>
>> >I think NASA should abandon completely the ISS
>> >(which in current situation seems only a complicated
>> >way of transferring funds to Russian mafia),
>>
>> Big agree!!
>>
>> >leave low-orbit human missions to space tourism companies,
>> >(or possibly to an occassional Hubble repair ;-)
>> >and use the money for frontier-breaking endeavors
>> >like the Mars Base.
>>
>> At least a Mars base would be pushing a frounteer. Its not in itself
usefull,
>> but its better then ISS. I think NASA should be leveraged out of launching
>> and routine ops and focused on cutting edge research and exploration
efforts.
>>
>Exactly.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4606" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "102" "Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4606
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15055
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15032
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GCFa19215
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:21 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <62c1db1a.362e9791@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:21 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 1:36:08 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Kelly,
>
>>>Another explanation would be that as I suggested: Contamination won't
>>>happen unless you are contaminating with large numbers of bacteria.
>>>And what about those typical totally grey-skin with large black eyed aliens
>>>that every selfrespecting abductee tells about. Couldn't that grey skin not
>>>just be a "space"suit? If these aliens breathe oxigen, then they would
>>>hardly need anything more than a water-tight suit to survive in Earth's
>>>atmosphere. (So no cumbersome backpacks nor metal parts to avoid the
>>>spacesuit from becoming a balloon.
>>
>>Surprized you heard about the 'grays'. That style of alien sighting is only
>>common in the U.S. (other areas of the world have different cultural
>>preferences) europeansd generally report Nordic looking ET's. ;)
>
>The NL imports a multitude of US movies, series and info-programmes.
Ah, as a rep of the US, I apologise.
>>Anyway quock check shows the aliens are B.S. As to the idea the
>contamination
>>won't happen without quatities of microbes, thats not really true. Microbes
>>reproduce. So if one hits a fertile zone, you quickly get quantities.
>
>If there were no other bacteria, you would be right.
>I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on Earth
>were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have
>overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the fittest
>and most numerous for that particular spot.
Your asuming they have an evolved defence against the intruders (unlikly) and
that the bacteria themselves might not be the food for the intruder. Even
tiny samples of more toxic bacteria introduced into a filled culture, will
whip out the rest of the stuff in the culture.
>The likelyhood of survival of a few bacteria that are not (yet) adapted to
>that spot is therefore small. Assuming the spot is suitable for the new
>bacteria, they'd need to be much stronger to get the overhand while being
>attacked by a majority that has the advantage of being adapted best to the
>particular spot.
>
>>>====================================================================
>
>>>Our body can become very agressive, it will change environmental parameters
>>>of which the best known is temperature. This will reduce the growth rate of
>>>the alien cells while our body has a wealth of options to partially
>>>compensate for this thermal inconveniance.
>>
>>That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive
>>(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a
>>feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against.
>
>Survival is something very different from thriving. I doubt that there are
>bacteria that can thrive in a large range of temperatures.
There are. The ones merntioned above handel frezing to hundreds of degrees
water just fine. They can survive far worse.
>Anyhow, any
>divergence from the optimum temperature for the hositle bacteria will give
>the human body an advantage.
>Our body can sense a very large scale of alien (not necessarily
>extraterrestrial) substances. As far as I know it is not so that our body
>has to learn what is alien, it merely checks if it isn't familiar to the
>body itself. As soon as a substance is strange, the body will try to attack
>it right away. I suppose the body has standard procedures for substances
>that it doesn't have encountered before.
Many unnatural substances can be introduced without reactino. the deseases
that kill us specifically are ones te body often does not react to effectivly
or at all.
>>>Furthermore leukocytes (attack cells) will attack and won't make feeding
>>>for the bacteria or small organisms any easier.
>>>In fact our body can destroy part of itself in a fight: High fever can
>>>cause serious damage to organs, the high temperature is generated by the
>>>body itself in response to the intruder.
>>
>>Again, only if its something te body knows to attack. Many things will kill
>>us without triggering any defensive measure.
>
>No, some creatures just can quickly enough find spots where our body's
>immune system is very ineffective or hardly notices it. Other substances
>like poisons are just attacking too fast for our body the react against (if
>they are in large enough quantities). In general relative small quantities
>won't make much of a chance.
Poisons can work quickly or take years. They are just chemical componds. If
the body doesn't normally break them down and excreat them safely, we get
hurt.
>Timothy
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1310" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "50" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1310
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15482
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15471
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MDa004134
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:32 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <abb650d4.362e979c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 1:21:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>>
>
>> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>
>> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>
>> that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>
>> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
>
>> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>
>> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>
>> have FTL particles at all.
>
>
>
>Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking about
>
>evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers.
>
>( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered
>
>the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons
>
>(faster than light particles).
WHOA!! If true that would be seriously big news!
>Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
>
>evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
>
>there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
>
>isn't possible.
Thats an assumption (that you can't get from slower to faster without going
fast as) which we might be able to get around.
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2619" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:08" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2619
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14979
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14959
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NPVa02538
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:08 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <68a27a36.362e9784@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:08 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 12:18:43 PM, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > The Alberquen (sp) warp drive (see the NASA site WARP drive when?) is a
design
> > for a warp drive by a physist of the same name. (He realized the Star
Trek
> > technobable actually made sence. The ship isn't moving, it shoves a
bubble
>of
> > space around the ship at hyper light speeds. No relativity effects).
>
>The Alcubierre drive requires some physically dubious stuff in
>order to actually work -- mainly a region of "negative energy
>density". Find me some negative energy and we'll talk then.
Well also enough energy to dwarf a small galaxy. Definately an idea that
needs further development. ;)
> > Certain quantum effects do work instently over measurable distences (hence
> > faster then light, thou most don't involve mass traveling).
>
>None involve mass traveling over macroscopic distances at all.
>"Quantum interconnectedness" is also proven to be unable to
>communicate information.
Well there are quantum tunneling effects work at microscopic. You MIGHT be
able to make it work at macroscopic, but no solid clue how.
> > Also Einstines equations don't say you can't go faster then light. Then
say
> > you can't go AT the speed of light. How you get from slower then to
faster
> > then is a big trick, but travel at eiather is 'legal'.
>
>You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
>mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>have FTL particles at all.
>
> > Good news: a lot of pysisist now see FTL and time travel as legal (thou if
> > they are possible a lot of the rest of physics could get run through a
> > blender). Bad news, no one has a clue how to build a machine to do it.
(The
> > theories suggest power levels that would dwarf a stars output.)
>
>General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
>FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
>travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
>could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
>implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
>incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
>or a "warp bubble".
But saying it would take incredable amounts of energy is a big difference from
physically impossible.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["820" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:44" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 820
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15406
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15398
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KWWa02301
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:44 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <47922885.362e97a8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:44 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 1:22:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:
>> >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a
>
>> one-way mission?
>
>>
>
>> I completely disagree.
>
>> how do you sell this to the media?
>
>
>
>Without agreeing or disagreeing, the media, and therefore the public can be
>
>sold almost anything. The scandal over Clinton is proof enough of that.
Bull shit! Its virtually impossible to sell the public anything. The one
part of human psycology that if very well researched is sales. Rule one. You
can't sell the public what you want, you can only try to tell them that what
you want to sell will get them something they want.
>> You need the vast majority of the public to support you, you'r eprobably
>
>> the reason their taxes are now 30% higher.
>
>
>
>
>
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["782" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:37" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 782
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15776
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15744
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2FPHa17823
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:37 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5768f2bb.362e97a1@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:37 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 1:35:40 PM, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu wrote:
>L. Parker writes:
> > Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
> > evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
> > there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
> > isn't possible.
>
>Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
>that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
>weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
>and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic
>forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
I seem to remember similar arguments by physicists "proving" that quantum
mechanics and black holes were impossible.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2040" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:03" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "61" "Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2040
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14939
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14932
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MCZa10440
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:03 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <53741f39.362e977f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:03 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 8:28:27 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>>===
>> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing
>> >> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your
>> >> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift
>> >> costs are about nil.
>> >>
>> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
>> >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
>> >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
>> >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
>> >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
>> >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
>> >appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
>>
>> Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space
>> (water, ore, air subcomponents)
>>
>Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit.
How? The ore is higher grade in space. Near nil transport and thermal power
costs. No need to break open a montain to get to it. Little problem in
forging and welding it together.
>> spining for grav isn't hard.
>>
>Still not yet tested practically .
>> Probably no real chance of
>> finding a planet with 1 g,
>>
>Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.
We have no way of knowing, but data suggests not.
>> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
>>
>I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
>Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
>solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
>(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
>skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
>but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
>lower temperature variation.
Ah ha. Your taking an encampment on a frozen methan or amonia world with
possible toxic life and high expense, and unknown rad level, instead of a
O'Neil?!
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1139" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:29" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1139
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15033
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA15002
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZJGa07909
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:29 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a3a49839.362e9799@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:29 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 7:27:26 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
>> >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
>> >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
>> >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
>> >and let them perish in space.
>> >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
>> >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
>> >to perish in space, it is OK.
>> >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>>
>> I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to
>> protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. In the other we ask for
>> volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.
>>
>Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
>Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))
To save the money or time nessisary to work up a two way mission. Staying
longer has little other benifit.
>> Big morality issue difference.
>>
>Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...
I what sence?
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1585" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "22:25:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1585
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14994
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14983
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QAa004133
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:12 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <38c6181.362e9788@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:25:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/19/98 7:08:03 PM, paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/18/98 10:12:28 AM, rmarlin@network-one.com
>wrote:
>>
>> >> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
>> >> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
>> >> >
>> >
>> >I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and
>I don't
>> think
>> >it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is
>acceleration and
>> >deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If
>you are
>> sending
>> >people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over
>twice the
>> >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way
>mission?
>>
>> You miss the point. We can't send colonists. To do that we would
>need a
>> selfsustaining mini civilization which is WAY beyond anything we
>could or
>> would do. It would technically be virtually impossible, at least
>requireing a
>> population tens to hundreds of times larger.
>>
>> The debate isn't between sending a scouting mission or sending a
>colony. The
>> debate is between sending a say 8 year survey mission and returning
>them. Or
>> sending a 8 year survey mission and leaving them there to die.
>
>About 28 years! Woah, you actually have to get an ecosystem working if
>you wanna have food. Oh, well anyone's got other ideas, than this??
Actually no, we found carrying 30 years of stored and frozen food (and a
decade or two of dehydrated emergency rations) weight much less then a closed
cycle farm. IOt also provided more variety and safty in food suplies.
Kelly
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["678" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "20:47:15" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "15" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 678
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06687
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06676
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA18716
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA26549;
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13870.43715.694363.350860@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <bbc4750d.362e97a5@aol.com>
References: <bbc4750d.362e97a5@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> Well you and I have been in here for about 5 years now, so I guess were safe.
> We better hope the master of "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" hangs in
> there. Or we could create duplicate sites. Perhaps there is a way.
>
> Kelly
I have no problem with continuing to host the mailing list and
archives, and I'm not planning on going anywhere. Otherwise I'm
not sure what you're asking me to do here.
I have a limited amount of space I could provide for some other
web page material, but it would be in a personal account that I
can't give others access to, so I would probably have to host
stuff that wouldn't require much maintenance.
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["910" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "20:47:33" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 910
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06711
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06699
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA18724
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA26552;
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13870.43733.667642.465940@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <68a27a36.362e9784@aol.com>
References: <68a27a36.362e9784@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> >General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
> >FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
> >travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
> >could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
> >implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
> >incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
> >or a "warp bubble".
>
> But saying it would take incredable amounts of energy is a big difference from
> physically impossible.
>
> Kelly
I wouldn't be surprised, if it turns out that FTL is physically
possible, that it might be practically impossible. It could take
something like a galaxy's worth of mass/energy to move something
not very big a relatively short distance at FTL speeds. Under
such circumstances relativistic travel could look very efficient
indeed.
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["317" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "20:56:49" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "9" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 317
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA08653
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA08644
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20229;
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA26579;
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:56:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13870.44289.590702.814922@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <983d2cc.362e97ad@aol.com>
References: <983d2cc.362e97ad@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: KellySt@aol.com
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> [28 lines of quoted material]
> Very very true.
I'd kind of like it if people could avoid making tiny comments
after including large amounts of quoted material. Please either
trim quoted material to specifically relevant parts, or only
comment if you have something substantial to say.
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1195" "Wed" "21" "October" "1998" "21:03:18" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "23" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1195
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11125
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11112
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21356
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA26608;
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13870.44678.434301.286209@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <5768f2bb.362e97a1@aol.com>
References: <5768f2bb.362e97a1@aol.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
KellySt@aol.com writes:
> >Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
> >that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
> >weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
> >and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic
> >forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
>
> I seem to remember similar arguments by physicists "proving" that quantum
> mechanics and black holes were impossible.
The "warp bubble" approaches to FTL at least try to answer that
concern; an object moves in a "bubble" of normal spacetime where
the laws of physics work. If you claim that individual subatomic
particles can move FTL, though, they're going to have several
major problems with interacting with the slower-than-light
universe, and extended collections of particles are going to have
problems holding together.
Mostly this reminds me why we are not allowing FTL -- there are
no theories of FTL that are even close to being experimentally
demonstrated, so how are we supposed to design an FTL spacecraft
around completely unknown properties? We could argue about FTL
for a long time, but that's not going to get us anywhere.
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1116" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "12:50:05" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "26" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1116
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13217
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (8RLWUXruHoa2VNQ2ep4m5KNBchzX8nfe@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA13212
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost)
by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id MAA12721
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:50:06 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se
In-Reply-To: <47ae6ae.362e97b6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981022124700.11527A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:50:05 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> >The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
> >is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
> >(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
> >pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
> >or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
> >There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
> >advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
> >equally "protected" from human enterprise.
>
> Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater. If
> there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
> predisesors. The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother. So
> Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
> rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea labs
> have all been pulled out or sold.
>
Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
corporations...
/Bjorn
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["436" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "06:34:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 436
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19039
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA19024
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p222.gnt.com [204.49.89.222])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA05861;
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:36:54 -0500
Message-ID: <000201bdfdaf$f44971c0$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981022124700.11527A-100000@sabik.tdb.uu.se>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Bjorn Nilsson" <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
Cc: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:34:38 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Bjorn
> Nilsson
>
> Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
> makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
> corporations...
Correct. Which of course means that there will have to be test case. Hmm, I
wonder which court will get to hear it?
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["743" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "06:34:42" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 743
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19042
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA19030
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 04:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p222.gnt.com [204.49.89.222])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA05873;
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:36:58 -0500
Message-ID: <000301bdfdaf$f6164280$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-reply-to: <13870.44678.434301.286209@localhost.efn.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Steve VanDevender" <stevev@efn.org>, <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:34:42 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Steve
> VanDevender
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 11:03 PM
> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
> Mostly this reminds me why we are not allowing FTL -- there are
> no theories of FTL that are even close to being experimentally
> demonstrated, so how are we supposed to design an FTL spacecraft
> around completely unknown properties? We could argue about FTL
> for a long time, but that's not going to get us anywhere.
True. So lets get back to talking about the best engine we know how to make.
Or drop the engines entirely.
Lee
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2652" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "13:50:29" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2652
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA29166
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 05:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA29154
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 05:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA22485; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:50:29 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810221250.NAA22485@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:50:29 +0100 (MET)
> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Zenon Kulpa wrote:
> >
> > >The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
> > >is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
> > >(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
> > >pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
> > >or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
> > >There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
> > >advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
> > >equally "protected" from human enterprise.
> >
> > Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater.
> > If there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
> > predisesors. The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother. So
> > Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
> > rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea
> > labs have all been pulled out or sold.
> >
> Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
> makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
> corporations...
>
As for the undersea, as far as I know the treaties specifically
prevented private rights to undersea resources.
That effectively stopped ongoing plans of private corporations
to mine rich sea-bottom ores.
I do not know how it is currently with space-treaties;
I am afraid that even if the situation is different,
there will be strong pressure, especially from not-yet-spacefaring
nations, to include such measures in them - simply to slow down
the exploitation of space by more advanced nations until
the less-developed "catch on". Which they of course will not,
as there will then be little incentive for them to hurry,
and they will be unable to do all the necessary technology
from scratch all by themeselves.
The net effect will be considerable delay in conqureing space,
or even stopping it for long altogether (except for some
small Patfinders every few years to "show off"...).
Just the same way as it happened with undersea mining
(and hence, also development of suitable undersea equipment,
which could be later used to build more permanent undersea
bases and habitats), despite the fact that there seems to be
big money there.
That there is "big money" in something does not suffice -
there was potentially big money in launching private enterprises
in former "socialist" countries, but somehow the companies
did not thrive in them before substantial changes
in political system and law took effect...
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1500" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "13:59:39" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "43" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1500
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA00139
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA00127
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA22497; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:59:39 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810221259.NAA22497@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 13:59:39 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/19/98 8:18:01 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down
> >> to current trans ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up
> >> in accessing and using space.
> >>
> >I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
> >any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
>
> They are to few to spawn a large enough market.
>
I do not have exact numbers, but I thing the number of
lauches was in the thousands range.
Is it still not large enogh?
> >Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data
> >on the conditions there, necessary to design and build
> >further non-governemnt facilities and colonies.
> >Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment
> >needed for the private exploration of Mars.
>
> Ah ha. Somehow I don't think we need to spend 100's of billions
> to figure out ways to save tens of billions.
>
Hmm, it seems to sound quite right... ;-(
So, we should either make NASA more efficient (which is next
to impossible, I am afraid), or dissolve it completely.
Then possible government support for frontier-breaking
enterprises may take the form of "Space Achievement Prizes"
akin to the "Mars Prizes" proposal of Zubrin & Gingrich.
The NASA may then be left only as
a Space Prizes Administering Office...
I wonder why they seem not to make any measures
to implement the scheme?
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4123" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "14:40:36" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4123
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA06482
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA06468
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA22544; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:40:36 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810221340.OAA22544@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:40:36 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/19/98 8:28:27 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
> >>
> >> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier
> >> >> then landing and building the infastructure for a similar
> >> >> sized city. In space your not cut off from resources and
> >> >> free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil.
> >> >>
> >> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
> >> >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
> >> >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
> >> >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
> >> >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
> >> >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
> >> >appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
> >>
> >> Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space
> >> (water, ore, air subcomponents)
> >>
> >Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit.
>
> How? The ore is higher grade in space. Near nil transport and thermal power
> costs. No need to break open a montain to get to it. Little problem in
> forging and welding it together.
>
But much less trouble and hence lower costs of building
and maintaining habitats and working gear (space suits)
for needed human personnel.
> >> spining for grav isn't hard.
> >>
> >Still not yet tested practically .
>
> >> Probably no real chance of
> >> finding a planet with 1 g,
> >>
> >Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.
>
> We have no way of knowing, but data suggests not.
>
Hmm, what data? We have sufficient experimental data only
for 0g and 1g, and a little data for 1/6 g (due to Apollo...).
>From these data (and history of my body weight... ;-)
I suggest that the range 0.6 to 1.5 will
be acceptable (pending evidence to the contrary).
> >> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
> >>
> >I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
> >Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
> >solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
> >(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
> >skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
> >but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
> >lower temperature variation.
>
> Ah ha. Your taking an encampment on a frozen methan or amonia world
>
Who said frozen? I have said "right temperature range"...
> with possible toxic life
>
Assuming no life, or at most some sparse life, proven harmless
(e.g., due to completely different biology).
Here we essentially agree.
> and high expense,
>
??? My thesis is that it will be less expensive,
so you can't assume "high expense" as a given -
you must prove that it actually will be expensive.
> and unknown rad level,
>
??? The first automatic probes landing on the surface
will tell us of the rad levels and many others necessary
parameters before we ever attempt any manned landing.
And rad levels under the atmosphere (and especially
on a planet with magnetic field - one more possible advantage
of a planet-surface habitats) will be significantly lower
than in space - which will make heavy
radiation shielding and rad-safe suits unnecessary.
> instead of a O'Neil?!
>
Yes, instead of. And even "more instead" of habitats on asteroids.
We know pretty well how to build habitats on planets
of the characteristics I have described, and how to move around
on their surfaces; we have no experience with O'Neils or
vacuum/low gee/high temp variation asteroid environments.
Hence untill for some reasons the technology will be
finally developed, actual experimental habitats build,
and experience gathered, it will be much easier to build habitats
on (some) planets.
E.g., we know pretty well how, and have most of the technology needed,
to build permanent base on Mars. It is not true even for the Moon
(lack of essential resources, cosmic/solar rad levels, no atmosphere,
high temperature variation, etc.), not to speak of the asteroids.
-- Zenon
From VM Thu Oct 22 10:04:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2108" "Thu" "22" "October" "1998" "14:54:56" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "49" "Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2108
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08794
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA08789
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA22559; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:54:56 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199810221354.OAA22559@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:54:56 +0100 (MET)
> From: KellySt@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/19/98 7:27:26 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>
> >> >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
> >> >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
> >> >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
> >> >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
> >> >and let them perish in space.
> >> >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
> >> >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
> >> >to perish in space, it is OK.
> >> >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
> >>
> >> I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having
> >> to kill them to protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues.
> >> In the other we ask for volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.
> >>
> >Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
> >Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))
>
> To save the money or time nessisary to work up a two way mission.
> Staying longer has little other benifit.
>
The one-way missions have the following advantages:
- Are possible in many cases when a two-way is simply impossible
(lack of reliable technology; trips to farther stars).
- Are less prone to catastrophic ship & engine failures
(two-times lower load on the engines, many times less fuel needed).
- Allow for much longer and thorough exploration at the destination.
- Will be positively preferred by many people (e.g., Bjorn and me -
for the reasons Bjorn finely described).
For bureaucracy they will be a burden - it will be probably easier
to sell to the public the illusion of "returning'em home safely".
> >> Big morality issue difference.
> >>
> >Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...
>
> I what sence?
>
Compare the situation of volunteers living with the exciting
job to do until natural death of old age,
to the situation of people given an illusion of safe return
and then killed ruthlessly and prematurely just when they are
approaching their promised & dreamed-for home...
-- Zenon
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:32 1998
Content-Length: 7961
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["7961" "Fri" "23" "October" "1998" "20:07:11" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "191" "Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 7961
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04034
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04019
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NRMa02083
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:11 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <fea11c8c.36311a2f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:11 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/98 10:14:06 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do
government
>> >> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring
civilization
>> >> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late
>> >> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
>> >> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
>> >>
>> >> But its not a start. Its a conclusion to something very different.
Like
>> >> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space.
>> >>
>> >So what would you consider a start?
>> >Building a viable starship from scratch?
>>
>> What would I consider the start of manned use of space? Commercial craft
>> going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way.
>> A commercial, profitable, space station. The comsats are a far bigger
>> step then Apollo.
>>
>I do not think so. They have a little impact on the improvements of
>space launching technology, while without Apollo we would know
>a lot less about the space conditions, Moon history, resources,
>an environment, not speaking about the necessary technology
>for interplanetary ships (Voyagera, Mars & Venus probes, etc.).
Further improvements in space launch technology isn't nessisary. Increased
market demand is. Comsats start a major market which in the context of the
question is far more critical.
>> So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying).
>> Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived.
>>
>Here I agree.
>Consider that Apollo was also partially a military craft...
Political / coldward was its porpose, but I wouldn't count them as military.
In anyeven Apollo doesn't coun't as a aerospace craft.
>> >> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> >> >> and abondon them there to die.
>> >> >>
>> >> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>> >> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>> >> >to understand that!
>> >> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again? ;-))
>> >>
>> >> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you
give
>
>> >> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever
>> >> after the missions over. ;)
>> >>
>> >I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
>> >to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
>> >meets the acceptability criteria.
>>
>> Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed.
>>
>> As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer.
>> No, they don't count.
>>
>That is, you say that the individual freedem does not count?
Not in this context.
>> You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on
>> camera for the ten secounds of fame.
>>
>First, this is not an analogy to one-way missions.
>The crew for such a mission does not go
>to be burned alive, nor does it go for ten seconds of fame.
Well some volenteers actual would, but thats another issue.
I used this anology since it is similar. Say a TV show agreed to televise
live anyone who volenteered to burn themselves alive on camera. Regardless of
the fact everyone voloenteered, no onewould let it go on, and the TV show
would be criminally procecuted. The show was acting in a criminally negligent
manor. So would a group sponcering a throw away one way mission.
>Second, I do not see any resons to not allow
>those your people to burn themselves.
>At least, there will be several fools less,
>of which the humanity can only benefit.
>
>> Its the criteria of those that fund, and
>>
>But you propose to intimidate those willing
>to fund one-way missions too...
>
>> the society that supports it that counts.
>> I don't know about over in your area, but in the west
>> its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for a good cause.
>>
>Kelly, don't be silly, please. Torturing animals for whatever cause
>has completely no similarity to going for a one-way mission.
Sure it does. Its been generally decided that you can't casually abuse
animals for minor convenence. The same rule also applies to humans.
>> >> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>> >> >interplanetary-space society.
>> >>
>> >> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental
>> >> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>> >>
>> >Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
>> >already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
>> >that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
>> >will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
>> >toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
>> >(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
>> >than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" -
>> >hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward
>> >interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.
>>
>> I tend to be sispicious of that. Its assumed that just because people are
in
>> space their society will be basically and radically different somehow. So
>> far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past
>> couple milenia. So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or -
>> not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any
>> forceable future.
>>
>It will be different, and possibly even basically.
>The history of humankind shows that clearly -
>transitions from hunter-gatherers, through nomadic herders,
>agriculture settlements, merchant cities, to technological
>civilization of today were mirrored with quite different social
>organizations and mentality. Even now there are great
>differences in mentality and attitudes between Western
>and Eastern societies, despite the fair amount of homogenization.
>The transition into space-inhabiting society will be an even
>more radical change that all the previous ones, hence
>we may expect quite new changes in social structures and attitudes,
>largery unpredictable now, together with quite large differences
>between Earth-bound and interplanetary societies.
Heres the primary difference. I don't see settle space as any more
fundementally different then settling the New world. The different mixing of
cultures and situations here did leed to different cultural and value paterns
in many significant ways, but nothing on the scale that would render
irrelavent the fundementals of why colonies here or anywhere else work or
don't work.
>> >That is not the question of "new laws".
>> >Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
>> >a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
>> >reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
>> >like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
>> >Not speaking about the fact that in those times
>> >there even were no fashion shows in Paris...
>>
>> Oh, yeah. If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that
>> allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national
>> geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh
>> line, and not colonies.
>>
>Do not take my analogy too literally.
>I want only to show that once some quite new trechnological
>possibilities open, they are put to many different uses,
>some of them quite not anticipated by their inventors
>and other people of the time when they were developed.
>So it will be with interplanetary space habitation technology.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:33 1998
Content-Length: 6660
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["6660" "Fri" "23" "October" "1998" "20:07:06" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "162" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 6660
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04532
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04518
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DUNa10655
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:06 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <72e01140.36311a2a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:06 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/98 10:33:23 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/13/98 10:34:17 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> In a message dated 10/8/98 11:29:38 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> >>
>[...]
>> >> Largely agree, but nano tech is not a requirement.
>> >>
>> >Maybe not, but it will help significantly...
>>
>> ..it will help significantly is the understatment of the century
>> in regards to Nano-tech. ;)
>>
>I was careful, just in case you are a skeptic on this issue... ;-)
>
>
>> >> >Second, our starship should be a viable "permanent human
>> >> >habitat in space", and rather large for that.
>> >> >How to build one without any prior experience?
>> >> >Do you think that the very first human space habitat will be
>> >> >that going to another star?
>> >>
>> >> Theres no reason a starship would need to be a perminent habitatate
>> >> and a lot of real good reasons why it couldn't/shouldn't be.
>> >>
>> >But for interstellar missions we will need such a habitat
>> >capable of sustaining hundreds of people for tens of years
>> >(which by today's standards is close to "permanent"),
>> >in complete isolation from any help from outside.
>> >We do not have ANY experience in building such habitats in space,
>> >not even clear desigh concepts (e.g., concerning reliability
>> >and necessity for repair & manufacturing machinery - there were
>> >hot and inconclusive discussions on the list concerning these problems).
>> >I do not think one can build a starship from scratch
>> >WITHOUT prior exerience with similar space habitats actually
>> >working in relative isolation for tens of years
>> >(or at least several years).
>> >Till now we have only a little experience with habitats
>> >for several people that can work for several months
>> >on near-earth orbit.
>>
>> Leakage rates over decades are a big issue, but atmosphere and water
recycling
>> aer much more straight forward. I agree that we wouldn't put together and
>> launch a star ship without building and testing the hab ring for a couple
>> years, but testing for decades wouldn't be nessisary. No more nessisary
then
>> pre testing a bridge for decades before we build it and open it to the
public.
>>
>But see, when building a bridge today, we tap hundreds of years
>of experience with building bridges, their failures, etc.
>But we have zero years of experience with building space habitats
>of the sort needed for a starship.
We do have decades of experience in closed artificial environments. Starship
hab zones basically just have to provide a seeled presure vessel for the air
and water processors to work in.
>> >[...]
>> >> >True, but we should START going in the first place.
>> >> >Apollo seemed such a start - but after that first step,
>> >> >we made two steps back.
>> >>
>> >> Actually in a lot of ways Apollo was the two steps back. Air Force
programs
>> >> in the '60's leading toward mini space shuttles were scuttled to help
pay
>
>> >> for space capsules. Also it gave NASA ownership of space that they have
>> >> viciously defended.
>> >>
>> >You are partly right, but, first, it is a good strategy
>> >to use as much of already proved technology rather than make
>> >all the things anew. Second, obviosly some technology
>> >progress has been made, for example the Saturn V rocket,
>> >which is to this day one of the largest (if not still the largest)
>> >as concerns carrying capacity. It would be more than sufficient
>> >as the Zubrin's Mars Direct booster - unfortunately its assembly
>> >lines were dismantled long ago and as far as I know,
>> >none is preserved (even rusted).
>>
>> True the Sat-Vs were great heavy boosters for their day, but none could be
>> built and used today (even the tech to build the parts is long gone). So
all
>> in all its pretty much a step that went no where, thou it did convince the
>> world we could go if we wanted.
>>
>So you think, e.g., that the ancient art of splitting stones,
>largery forgotten these days, was also a step that went nowhere?
We did something with that tech. As far as opening the space frounteer,
Apollo did as much harm as good.
>>(But it convinced them it could only be done at collosal cost).
>>
>It is true. This is one of the main reasons the other states
>in the world are reluctant to pursue the space technology -
>the convinction that it is collosally expensive.
>Though I wonder if it was due to Apollo (only).
It was the first money-is-no-object big space project. It shoved aside all
the other projects, and set the standard - or the expectation.
>> >> >So naming it a "Sagan Station" sounds rather denigrating
>> >> >(for Sagan).
>> >>
>> >> Actually Sagan might have liked it. He HATED the idea of maned space
>> >> exploration and colonizatino. Went crazy at a meeting where equipment
>> >> to mine fuel from Phoboes was discused. He wanted space left prestine
>> >> for robots and science probes.
>> >>
>> >That is strange. In "Pale Blue Dot" he strongly advocates manned space
>> >exploration and even planet terraforming (he also presented in his
>> >other works various terraforming ideas and scenarios, e.g. for Venus).
>> >He writes in the "Dot" about "ecological" arguments against that,
>> >but only to "show the whole picture", not to really advocate them.
>>
>> That is strange. He threw fits at space comercialization conferences, and
>> almost always argued against maned programs. I can't figure it.
>>
>Possibly, he came to his senses finally?
>There generally is a big difference in attitude towards
>future of mankind between his "Cosmos" and "Pale Blue Dot".
>Or maybe you confused him with someone else?
No it was him. The only real maned spoace project he got behind was a joint
US and USSR maned Mars mission. (He hoped it would lead to better peice and
understanding.) Never heard of him changing him mind in his closing years.
>> >However, he was certainly wrong with his "great idea"
>> >of international cooperation (by which he meant mostly
>> >USA-Russia cooperation) to boost space exploration,
>> >as current state of the ISS shows with a vengeance.
>> >He should have asked the Poles for the opinion instead...
>>
>> Really, I forwarded reports related to that, and I know folks
>> in ISS were never happy to have to add all te extra costs
>> and hassel of adding Russia in.
>>
>So it seems to have been another example of miguided politics
>overriding the reason...
Or politician supporting their reason, and no other reason geting comperable
support.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:35 1998
Content-Length: 2207
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2207" "Fri" "23" "October" "1998" "20:07:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "95" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2207
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA04129
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04112
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QOJa19214
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:16 +2000 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a6ccd50f.36311a34@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:07:16 EDT
In a message dated 10/20/98 6:52:52 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>Haven't been on for a while...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: L. Parker <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>
>To: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
>
>Date: Tuesday, 20 October 1998 4:26
>
>Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>
>>> You can plug values of v > c into special relativity equations,
>
>>> at the cost of ending up with things like time and mass values
>
>>> that are complex numbers. I don't know if I'd call that "legal."
>
>>> Find me some complex mass and we'll talk then. A quantum
>
>>> mechanical analysis also indicates that you can either have FTL
>
>>> particles that aren't localizable (i.e. observable) or you can't
>
>>> have FTL particles at all.
>
>>
>
>>Actually, I think it was AIP News about two weeks ago that was talking
>
>about
>
>>evidence of a type of neutrino with properties that were imaginary numbers.
>
>>( I believe it was spin, but don't quote me.) The scientists who discovered
>
>>the effect even stated that if validated, these would have to be tachyons
>
>>(faster than light particles).
>
>>
>
>>Every analysis I've ever seen of relativity agrees that if you ignore the
>
>>evident causality paradoxes, travel above the speed of light is possible,
>
>>there just isn't any way to get there because travel at the speed of light
>
>>isn't possible.
>
>>
>
>>Lee
>
>>
>
>>
>
>Can you dig up the reference? John Cramer, in his Alternate View column in
>
>"Analog" talked about tachyon neutrinos as a possible drive system - not for
>
>FTL, but as a reactionless drive. Coupled to a suitable power source a
>
>coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
>
>Universe. A convenient power source would be either a GUT power-core or some
>
>sort of ZPE system, both of which can produce infinite power.
This is obviously a different use of the word convenient given that that they
don't exist.
>Has anyone
>
>checked out Jack Sarfatti's site at Starship? They all think that some sort
>
>of ZPE power system isn't too far off. Maybe by 2050?
They also beleave in aliens and psyicic powers.
>Adam
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:42 1998
Content-Length: 5431
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5431" "Sat" "24" "October" "1998" "16:09:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "118" "starship-design: Vote" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5431
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27812
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA27802
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from halberd (p202.gnt.com [204.49.89.202])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA08451
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:10:13 -0500
Message-ID: <000001bdff92$a0a025c0$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDFF68.B7D34580"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Vote
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:09:45 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDFF68.B7D34580
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01BDFF68.B7DAE6A0"
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01BDFF68.B7DAE6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
CNN's Poll Today is one NASA's space projects. So far with 6,000
respondents, there is a 70 percent margin in favor of NASA's space projects
as a budget item - go VOTE, maybe someone is listening...
Lee
Anthony's Law of Force
Don't force it -- get a bigger hammer.
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01BDFF68.B7DAE6A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE>BODY {
BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, =
"sans serif"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 68px
}
HR {
COLOR: #000000; HEIGHT: 1px; WIDTH: 100%
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3Dcid:450020521@24101998-0c14 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D450020521-24101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>CNN's Poll Today is one NASA's space projects. So far with =
6,000=20
respondents, there is a 70 percent margin in favor of NASA's space =
projects as a=20
budget item - go VOTE, maybe someone is listening...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D450020521-24101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D450020521-24101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>Lee</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG>Anthony's Law of Force </STRONG>
<P>Don't force it -- get a bigger hammer. </P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01BDFF68.B7DAE6A0--
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDFF68.B7D34580
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Tech Tools.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <450020521@24101998-0c14>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BDFF68.B7D34580--
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:43 1998
Content-Length: 656
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["656" "Sat" "24" "October" "1998" "16:14:28" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "22" "starship-design: cancelling the vibrations..." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 656
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28913
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA28907
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202)
id QAA16809; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:22:49 -0500
Received: from wf-1-3.wavefront.com(204.73.244.133), claiming to be "urly-bird.com"
via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa16805; Sat Oct 24 21:22:43 1998
Message-ID: <36324334.E18623F7@urly-bird.com>
Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
From: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: SSD <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: cancelling the vibrations...
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:14:28 -0500
The easiest way is not with two engines, but with 6.
Arranged in a hexgonal pattern and viewed from the engine looking
toward the nose.
1
2 _(_)_ 6
(_) (_)
(_)_(_)
3 (_) 5
4
Engines 1,3,5 fire alternately with 2,4,6 with each explositon, the
center of gravity remains within the hexagon, and therefore stable.
the two sets of explosions might tend to cancel each other. An even
beter scenario would be to fire them in pairs, and have a three phased
cycle. 1&4, 2&5, 3&6 would work. The vibrations would overlap more,
and average out.
--
Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/
Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:45 1998
Content-Length: 1179
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1179" "Sat" "24" "October" "1998" "16:30:05" "-0500" "Kevin Houston" "kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "25" "starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1179
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03202
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wavefront.com (daemon@ns.wavefront.com [204.73.244.1])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03144
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202)
id QAA17547; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:38:24 -0500
Received: from wf-1-3.wavefront.com(204.73.244.133), claiming to be "urly-bird.com"
via SMTP by ns.wavefront.com, id smtpdAAAa17545; Sat Oct 24 21:38:20 1998
Message-ID: <363246DD.4C70144@urly-bird.com>
Organization: http://www.urly-bird.com/houston4thehouse/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
From: Kevin Houston <kevin@urly-bird.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: SSD <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:30:05 -0500
Hi, It has been suggested that travel above the speed of light
is possible, but no one has any idea how to skip travel exactly
at the speed of light. I have also seen people discussing that
tunneling particles travel in zero time, so it got me thinking...
What if a ship, going just below light speed, could cause each
of it's subatomic particles to tunnel in the same direction and
at the same time. Wouldn't the ship be traveling faster than
the speed of light? Firing retro rockets at that point, would
cause the ship to travel even faster, and when we re-emerged
from the tunneling, we would find ourselves going just a bit
higher than light speed.
I'm only speculating on the simultaneous tunneling, not the FTL
travel, I don't want to rehash all the FTL stuff. could it be
possible to make a macroscopic item behave quantumly, by making
all of the object's atoms behave quantumly, at the same time and
in the same manner. But controlling each one individually.
Of course this level of control is not even remotely possible,
I'm just dreaming out loud here.
--
Kevin Houston http://www.lpmn.org/candidates/
Libertarian candidate for Congress - District 5
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:48 1998
Content-Length: 1892
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1892" "Sat" "24" "October" "1998" "17:35:25" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1892
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16885
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16875
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OEMComputer (pm6-110.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.110])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA20885
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:38:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3632724D.7A7@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <363246DD.4C70144@urly-bird.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 17:35:25 -0700
Kevin Houston wrote:
> What if a ship, going just below light speed, could cause each
> of it's subatomic particles to tunnel in the same direction and
> at the same time. Wouldn't the ship be traveling faster than
> the speed of light?
Technically, yes, if you do it right. But how do you cause an entire
ship to quantum tunnel at once? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would
give you problems.
> Firing retro rockets at that point, would
> cause the ship to travel even faster, and when we re-emerged
> from the tunneling, we would find ourselves going just a bit
> higher than light speed.
I have no idea what would happen in this case.
> could it be
> possible to make a macroscopic item behave quantumly, by making
> all of the object's atoms behave quantumly, at the same time and
> in the same manner.
Absolutely. Its called a "Bose-Einstein Condensate." Do a search about
superfluid helium. But still, how do you get this to quantum tunnel? And
how do you convert a manned ship to a quantum entity without
killing/damaging the crew/ship?
> Of course this level of control is not even remotely possible,
With a B-E condensate, if I understand it correctly, you need not
control each atom. The condensate behaves as one single quantum entity.
Therefore you may need to control only one entity. Personally, I believe
the best way to surpass C would be to engineer something like
Alcubierre's "warp drive", but to do that we would have to have some
means of warping space more than normal matter/energy can (due to
unphysically high energy requirements). If we can do that, we have a
chance. Or, you could find some way to bypass the whole problem, and
simply decrease the Mu0 and Epsilon0 of the vacuum around your ship,
thereby increasing the local speed of light. But it is not known how to
do this outside of a Casimir chamber.
That's my core dump.
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:56 1998
Content-Length: 4353
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4353" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:40" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "103" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4353
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25162
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25157
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ADRa17824
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3a949efc.3633535c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:40 EST
In a message dated 10/22/98 9:03:21 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/19/98 7:27:26 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
>> >> >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
>> >> >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not
>> >> >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam,
>> >> >and let them perish in space.
>> >> >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
>> >> >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them
>> >> >to perish in space, it is OK.
>> >> >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>> >>
>> >> I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having
>> >> to kill them to protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues.
>> >> In the other we ask for volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.
>> >>
>> >Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
>> >Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))
>>
>> To save the money or time nessisary to work up a two way mission.
>> Staying longer has little other benifit.
>>
>The one-way missions have the following advantages:
>- Are possible in many cases when a two-way is simply impossible
> (lack of reliable technology; trips to farther stars).
Unlikely, and a transient problem. One ways also need far greater resources
and equipment given their potentially greater mission times, and the systems
must be greatly upgraded so that they can function for long after most of the
crew is dead or unable to service them. Its unlikelt that a one way (assuming
you allow for crew survival longer then origional two way mission) could be
done as easily as a two way.
Remember the mission length limit is probably the service life of the ship and
adult crew. Give the crew will age, and become incapable or sustaining the
ship, just as fast parked or in flight; and the ship will wear out about as
fast eiather way. The total mission length can only be extended by accepting
higher risks, or upgrading the ships systems considerably.
>- Are less prone to catastrophic ship & engine failures
> (two-times lower load on the engines, many times less fuel needed).
If an engine set can function long enough to get the crew there, its virtually
certain it could at least get tyhem back at reduced speed. Even assuming the
engine service life was a real risk. The crew is in far, far greater danger
of all other systems failing and killing them.
>- Allow for much longer and thorough exploration at the destination.
Only with significant upgrading and increase of the survey equipment. After a
few years in systems the shuttles, rover, etc will be geting really beat up,
and you can't carry enough gear to fix everything.
>- Will be positively preferred by many people (e.g., Bjorn and me -
> for the reasons Bjorn finely described).
Frankly I find it difficult to beleave you would find the actual procpect of
going to spend a decade exploring, and half a century imprisoned in a dieing
deralict ship quiet so appealling. Certainly the best and brightest we might
want to attract to such a project could find a much better option.
>For bureaucracy they will be a burden - it will be probably easier
>to sell to the public the illusion of "returning'em home safely".
As opposed to the leaving them there to die on international TV? OH YEAH!!
>> >> Big morality issue difference.
>> >>
>> >Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...
>>
>> I what sence?
>>
>Compare the situation of volunteers living with the exciting
>job to do until natural death of old age,
>to the situation of people given an illusion of safe return
>and then killed ruthlessly and prematurely just when they are
>approaching their promised & dreamed-for home...
The former isn't an option. The later would only be exercised if they had a
desease that was a threat to Earth. Which they would be unlikly to survive
here, there, or on the way back.
Your still stuck with the dubuious situation of explaning why you sent a crew
to be abandoned to die along with there ship. Hell armies never even abandon
there dead in wartime. Abondoning the living to improsonment and slow death
is not the moral high ground.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:57 1998
Content-Length: 1061
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1061" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:46" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1061
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25206
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25199
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2PUHa02328
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <a7e09d2d.36335362@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:46 EST
In a message dated 10/21/98 10:51:23 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > Well you and I have been in here for about 5 years now, so I guess were
safe.
> > We better hope the master of "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" hangs in
> > there. Or we could create duplicate sites. Perhaps there is a way.
> >
> > Kelly
>
>I have no problem with continuing to host the mailing list and
>archives, and I'm not planning on going anywhere. Otherwise I'm
>not sure what you're asking me to do here.
Actually I wasn't asking anything, just mentioning as an aside that your
archive and mail list support was critical.
>
>I have a limited amount of space I could provide for some other
>web page material, but it would be in a personal account that I
>can't give others access to, so I would probably have to host
>stuff that wouldn't require much maintenance.
About the same situation as the current site under Daves sunsite account.. I
suppose if you had more time then Dave has had, it might make sence, otherwise
its about a draw.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:58 1998
Content-Length: 5532
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5532" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:36:03" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "142" "Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5532
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25216
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25211
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2YYTa02083
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:36:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4169a92f.36335373@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:36:03 EST
In a message dated 10/22/98 8:48:25 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/19/98 8:28:27 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier
>> >> >> then landing and building the infastructure for a similar
>> >> >> sized city. In space your not cut off from resources and
>> >> >> free power, and transport and lift costs are about nil.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported
>> >> >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet
>> >> >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary
>> >> >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space
>> >> >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally
>> >> >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,
>> >> >appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
>> >>
>> >> Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space
>> >> (water, ore, air subcomponents)
>> >>
>> >Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit.
>>
>> How? The ore is higher grade in space. Near nil transport and thermal power
>> costs. No need to break open a montain to get to it. Little problem in
>> forging and welding it together.
>>
>But much less trouble and hence lower costs of building
>and maintaining habitats and working gear (space suits)
>for needed human personnel.
Thats still a lot less trouble and danger than deep mining. Especially since
said colonists would have to have all the space gear avalible in order to get
there in the first place.
>> >> spining for grav isn't hard.
>> >>
>> >Still not yet tested practically .
>>
>> >> Probably no real chance of
>> >> finding a planet with 1 g,
>> >>
>> >Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.
>>
>> We have no way of knowing, but data suggests not.
>>
>Hmm, what data? We have sufficient experimental data only
>for 0g and 1g, and a little data for 1/6 g (due to Apollo...).
>From these data (and history of my body weight... ;-)
>I suggest that the range 0.6 to 1.5 will
>be acceptable (pending evidence to the contrary).
We also have forced bedrest data (simulation zero G) knowledge of low exercise
levels on human health, and experimental data on animals (dogs and rats)
raised in a high G environments, all strongly point that prolonged lowered G
is bad for you. Obviousl high G is bad for the landers. ;)
>> >> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
>> >>
>> >I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
>> >Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
>> >solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
>> >(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
>> >skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
>> >but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
>> >lower temperature variation.
>>
>> Ah ha. Your taking an encampment on a frozen methan or amonia world
>>
>Who said frozen? I have said "right temperature range"...
Sorry, my mistake. But its still highly poisonous.
>> with possible toxic life
>>
>Assuming no life, or at most some sparse life, proven harmless
>(e.g., due to completely different biology).
>Here we essentially agree.
>
>> and high expense,
>>
>??? My thesis is that it will be less expensive,
>so you can't assume "high expense" as a given -
>you must prove that it actually will be expensive.
Working in a toxic and corisive environment, on a planet? I think high
expence is a given, but we can argue that above.
>> and unknown rad level,
>>
>??? The first automatic probes landing on the surface
>will tell us of the rad levels and many others necessary
>parameters before we ever attempt any manned landing.
>And rad levels under the atmosphere (and especially
>on a planet with magnetic field - one more possible advantage
>of a planet-surface habitats) will be significantly lower
>than in space - which will make heavy
>radiation shielding and rad-safe suits unnecessary.
Sheilding in space is easy, I'll drop the rad comment for the planet though.
>> instead of a O'Neil?!
>>
>Yes, instead of. And even "more instead" of habitats on asteroids.
>We know pretty well how to build habitats on planets
>of the characteristics I have described, and how to move around
>on their surfaces; we have no experience with O'Neils or
>vacuum/low gee/high temp variation asteroid environments.
>Hence untill for some reasons the technology will be
>finally developed, actual experimental habitats build,
>and experience gathered, it will be much easier to build habitats
>on (some) planets.
>E.g., we know pretty well how, and have most of the technology needed,
>to build permanent base on Mars. It is not true even for the Moon
>(lack of essential resources, cosmic/solar rad levels, no atmosphere,
>high temperature variation, etc.), not to speak of the asteroids.
Here I strongly disagree. We have NO data on living on non earth like worlds,
or in toxic atmospheres. We don't know how our equipment will work. Full
airtight space suite on a 1 G world will be heavy and very incumbering. Also
its difficult to find materials on planets, and recovery systems may need to
be redesigned for each mine. Habitats face a constant threat of toxic
chemical leakage inward (air leagage outward if far easier to deal with and
less dangerous in a large station. etc.
>
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:49:59 1998
Content-Length: 3277
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3277" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:36:09" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "70" "Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3277
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25238
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25229
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NRRa13872
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:36:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <16a5d396.36335379@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:36:09 EST
In a message dated 10/22/98 7:58:28 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: Bjorn Nilsson <f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > Zenon Kulpa wrote:
>> >
>> > >The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
>> > >is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
>> > >(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
>> > >pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
>> > >or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
>> > >There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
>> > >advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
>> > >equally "protected" from human enterprise.
>> >
>> > Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater.
>> > If there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
>> > predisesors. The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother. So
>> > Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
>> > rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea
>> > labs have all been pulled out or sold.
>> >
>> Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
>> makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
>> corporations...
>>
>As for the undersea, as far as I know the treaties specifically
>prevented private rights to undersea resources.
>That effectively stopped ongoing plans of private corporations
>to mine rich sea-bottom ores.
>
>I do not know how it is currently with space-treaties;
>I am afraid that even if the situation is different,
>there will be strong pressure, especially from not-yet-spacefaring
>nations, to include such measures in them - simply to slow down
>the exploitation of space by more advanced nations until
>the less-developed "catch on". Which they of course will not,
>as there will then be little incentive for them to hurry,
>and they will be unable to do all the necessary technology
>from scratch all by themeselves.
>The net effect will be considerable delay in conqureing space,
>or even stopping it for long altogether (except for some
>small Patfinders every few years to "show off"...).
>Just the same way as it happened with undersea mining
>(and hence, also development of suitable undersea equipment,
>which could be later used to build more permanent undersea
>bases and habitats), despite the fact that there seems to be
>big money there.
>
>That there is "big money" in something does not suffice -
>there was potentially big money in launching private enterprises
>in former "socialist" countries, but somehow the companies
>did not thrive in them before substantial changes
>in political system and law took effect...
>
>-- Zenon
Very true. One advantage that the U.S. has is that (agaionst the wishes of a
couple differnt presidential administrations) refused to sign the treaty. So
in theory U.S. companies could do what they like as long as the U.S. aproves
and will back them up. The U.S. is now aproving private space launchers and
reusables, but its unknown if they would support and defend a lunar base or
asteriod mine. Sooner or later, treaties or no, it will probably come down to
some armed conflict.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:00 1998
Content-Length: 1313
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1313" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:33" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1313
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25154
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25147
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QNTa10656
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <467a362e.36335355@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:33 EST
In a message dated 10/21/98 10:51:25 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > >General relativity seems to offer the best potential for allowing
> > >FTL effects, but no one has proven (even theoretically) that FTL
> > >travel could be achieved using things that actually exist or
> > >could be made from things that exist in the universe. The
> > >implications are, though, that it would indeed take absolutely
> > >incredible amounts of energy to create anything like a wormhole
> > >or a "warp bubble".
> >
> > But saying it would take incredable amounts of energy is a big difference
from
> > physically impossible.
> >
> > Kelly
>
>I wouldn't be surprised, if it turns out that FTL is physically
>possible, that it might be practically impossible. It could take
>something like a galaxy's worth of mass/energy to move something
>not very big a relatively short distance at FTL speeds. Under
>such circumstances relativistic travel could look very efficient
>indeed.
Historically things that are usefull, but require extravagent costs.
Eventually become affordable to more advanced periods of history. Or we find
another trick.
Without FTL, interstellar travel is probably to impractical and unproductive
for common use, or for farther then the imediate stellar neighborhood.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:01 1998
Content-Length: 2027
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2027" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:54" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "60" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2027
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25244
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25231
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NBVa10655
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <9c992daf.3633536a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:54 EST
In a message dated 10/22/98 8:07:22 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 10/19/98 8:18:01 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >>
>> >> Space tourisms ability to leverage costs to LEO orbit down
>> >> to current trans ocean air-freght cost numbers is a big step up
>> >> in accessing and using space.
>> >>
>> >I wonder why commsats, GPS, meteoats did not have
>> >any significant impact on lowering costs to LEO significantly?
>>
>> They are to few to spawn a large enough market.
>>
>I do not have exact numbers, but I thing the number of
>lauches was in the thousands range.
>Is it still not large enogh?
I think its more like hundreds, and that scattered over decades. A bit to
thin. Hundreds or thousands per year would be more like it.
>> >Yes and no. At least Mars Base will bring a lot of data
>> >on the conditions there, necessary to design and build
>> >further non-governemnt facilities and colonies.
>> >Hence, it will lower significantly the initial investment
>> >needed for the private exploration of Mars.
>>
>> Ah ha. Somehow I don't think we need to spend 100's of billions
>> to figure out ways to save tens of billions.
>>
>Hmm, it seems to sound quite right... ;-(
>
>So, we should either make NASA more efficient (which is next
>to impossible, I am afraid), or dissolve it completely.
>Then possible government support for frontier-breaking
>enterprises may take the form of "Space Achievement Prizes"
>akin to the "Mars Prizes" proposal of Zubrin & Gingrich.
>The NASA may then be left only as
>a Space Prizes Administering Office...
>
>I wonder why they seem not to make any measures
>to implement the scheme?
NASA is nervious. If they give up launch services (which they are terrable
at) they lose the bulk of their funds and operations. But as things are, even
they can't afford themself, and are strangling themself out of busness.
(Only a gov agency can manage this.)
>-- Zenon
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:01 1998
Content-Length: 1523
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1523" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:50" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1523
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25334
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:38:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25327;
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id BFCHa02317;
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <2c0ebd2e.36335366@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: YES, we might do it.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:50 EST
In a message dated 10/22/98 5:54:04 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >The analogy of Antarctic or deep-sea exploration
>> >is not valid here - they are not pursued for quite different reasons
>> >(e.g., international treaties asking for leaving Antarctide
>> >pristine [e.g. banning assimilating any outside animal species],
>> >or exluding private rights to deep-sea resources).
>> >There will be one more fight needed from space-exploration
>> >advocates: stopping atempts to make space & cellestial bodies
>> >equally "protected" from human enterprise.
>>
>> Well their are similar treaties for space, but that doesn't really mater.
If
>> there was money on the line those treaties would go the way of their
>> predisesors. The big problem is they all proved not worth the bother. So
>> Arctic bases arew maintained for political reasons (so all claiments keep
>> rights to Antarctica in case they want it in the future) and the undersea
labs
>> have all been pulled out or sold.
>>
>
>Hmm, I thought those treaties technicaly only prevented _NATIONS_ from
>makeing claims on extra-terestrial objects, not individuals or
>corporations...
No they prevent anyone from making a claim, they also make it difficult for
indeviduals or corps to even get to space. If they are like the law of the
sea treaty they also mandate that if a corporation gets there and finds
anything valuble. The profits are all to go to the UN for disbursement as
they see fit.
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:06 1998
Content-Length: 1678
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1678" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "11:35:43" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1678
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25189
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA25182
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DMCa22760
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <9929c2c.3633535f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:35:43 EST
In a message dated 10/21/98 11:07:18 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com writes:
> > >Actually, I also remember Isaac Kuo making the very good point
> > >that the structure of spacetime for an FTL particle would be so
> > >weird that hardly any of the usual laws of physics would imply,
> > >and that not even atoms could hold together since electromagnetic
> > >forces wouldn't propagate isotropically.
> >
> > I seem to remember similar arguments by physicists "proving" that quantum
> > mechanics and black holes were impossible.
>
>The "warp bubble" approaches to FTL at least try to answer that
>concern; an object moves in a "bubble" of normal spacetime where
>the laws of physics work. If you claim that individual subatomic
>particles can move FTL, though, they're going to have several
>major problems with interacting with the slower-than-light
>universe, and extended collections of particles are going to have
>problems holding together.
Even relatavistic startravel gets nasty with all the collisions. Your
starship bow thinks its on the wrong end of an ion cannon.
>Mostly this reminds me why we are not allowing FTL -- there are
>no theories of FTL that are even close to being experimentally
>demonstrated, so how are we supposed to design an FTL spacecraft
>around completely unknown properties? We could argue about FTL
>for a long time, but that's not going to get us anywhere.
True and true. Any current theory is so rough its debateable if it would work
even if we could build it, which we have no idea how to do. Not surprizing
really. If anyone had a solid clue it would be geting discussed at far higher
levels then us. ;)
Kelly
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:08 1998
Content-Length: 1443
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1443" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "12:15:09" "-0600" "Gene Marlin" "rmarlin@network-one.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1443
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15505
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netra1.network-one.com (netra1.network-one.com [209.149.88.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA15497
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from network-one.com ([209.149.88.176]) by netra1.network-one.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA2F3C;
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:16:29 -0600
Message-ID: <36336AAD.8C1EE3E5@network-one.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000301bdfb8c$b8102160$0100a8c0@halberd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>
From: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
CC: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:15:09 -0600
> > I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts:
> > first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out,
> > practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are
> > at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left
> > to work of being more fit...
> > I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts
> > (using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars,
> > especialy close ones. I consider it silly,
> > equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates
> > of our solar system
Why is that silly? For roughly 3500 million years, light leaving the solar
system has been "tagged" with the spectral signature of water vapor and free
oxygen, as well as methane and ozone. Any space faring civilization capable of
interferometry would have known by now that we are prime real estate. A radio
transmission would only prove that the animals here can use tools, and perhaps
participate in a mutually beneficial exchange of biological and cultural
information.
As for conquering a distant K1 civilization, why resort to killing one or two
when you can kill off everything? An overly hostile and paranoid group of aliens
(there are probably a few), might decide to launch nanotech spores or von
Neumann devices that seek and destroy planets like Earth. By now, we would have
been overrun.
Speaking of vN, there are probably a few drifting around in some quiet part of
the Sol system right now.
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:09 1998
Content-Length: 3530
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3530" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "00:10:41" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "70" "starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3530
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12602
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12586
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem1226.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.202])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA28157
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:11:39 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026001041.0068bc54@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:10:41 +0100
Hello Kelly,
>>I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on Earth
>>were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have
>>overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the fittest
>>and most numerous for that particular spot.
>
>Your asuming they have an evolved defence against the intruders (unlikly) and
>that the bacteria themselves might not be the food for the intruder. Even
>tiny samples of more toxic bacteria introduced into a filled culture, will
>whip out the rest of the stuff in the culture.
You are assuming that the alien bacteria evolved a defence against their
Earthly enemies and that these alien bacteria might not be food for
that-spot's-fittest bacteria.
It may seem as if I'm making fun of you, but to me this seems a number
game, the largest group is most likely to win.
>>The likelyhood of survival of a few bacteria that are not (yet) adapted to
>>that spot is therefore small. Assuming the spot is suitable for the new
>>bacteria, they'd need to be much stronger to get the overhand while being
>>attacked by a majority that has the advantage of being adapted best to the
>>particular spot.
====================================================================
>>>That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive
>>>(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a
>>>feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against.
>>
>>Survival is something very different from thriving. I doubt that there are
>>bacteria that can thrive in a large range of temperatures.
>
>There are. The ones merntioned above handel frezing to hundreds of degrees
>water just fine. They can survive far worse.
But these bacteria cannot possibly be equally comfortable along the whole
temperature range. In general there is only a small temperature range where
a range of chemical reactions will happen fastest. This small range is the
only "place" where the bacteria can thrive fastest. For bacteria that
attack humans this temperature optimum is likely our body temperature, thus
any deviation from that will slow their development.
>Many unnatural substances can be introduced without reactino. the deseases
>that kill us specifically are ones te body often does not react to effectivly
>or at all.
Only substances that already are present in the human body, or substances
that look like substances present in the human body will not be attacked.
>>No, some creatures just can quickly enough find spots where our body's
>>immune system is very ineffective or hardly notices it. Other substances
>>like poisons are just attacking too fast for our body the react against (if
>>they are in large enough quantities). In general relative small quantities
>>won't make much of a chance.
>
>Poisons can work quickly or take years. They are just chemical componds. If
>the body doesn't normally break them down and excreat them safely, we get
>hurt.
Poisons that work over years are usually substances that are present in our
bodies, but normally in small quantities. For many substances the body
excretes what is too much, but in some cases that isn't possible.
Poisons that act quickly, will for example clot the blood, or do something
else that immobilizes or slows down our immune system.
Poisons that work over the years are attacked by our body. We usually die
because our body has to do too much work excreting and fighting the poison
for an extensive time. (eg. our liver may break down)
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:50:11 1998
Content-Length: 1469
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1469" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "17:10:16" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1469
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29119
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29112
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com)
by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DSFMHUPK; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:10:39 EST
Message-ID: <19981025.171019.14518.1.jon_jay1@juno.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981026001041.0068bc54@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3,5-7,9,11,13-22,27-29
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay)
From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay)
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:10:16 -0600
>
>>>I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on
Earth
>>>were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have
>>>overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the
fittest
>>>and most numerous for that particular spot.
>>
>>Your asuming they have an evolved defence against the intruders
(unlikly) and
>>that the bacteria themselves might not be the food for the intruder.
Even
>>tiny samples of more toxic bacteria introduced into a filled culture,
will
>>whip out the rest of the stuff in the culture.
>
>You are assuming that the alien bacteria evolved a defence against their
>Earthly enemies and that these alien bacteria might not be food for
>that-spot's-fittest bacteria.
>It may seem as if I'm making fun of you, but to me this seems a number
>game, the largest group is most likely to win.
>
Not necessarily. You could have a ton of bacteria and a few of a
different, stronger kind, and the stronger could win. We have plenty of
bacteria in our bodies,yet we are still prone to illness. A heavyweight
wrestler could take on dozens of 10 year olds, and who do you think would
win? That also brings up the question "Can they sufficient resistance?"
Jon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:34:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1754" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "16:36:09" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Neutrinos" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1754
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13323
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA13311
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:22:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne4p52.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.52]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10890 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:22:22 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <000201be00db$4dc8ddc0$34fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Neutrinos
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:36:09 +1000
Hi Group,
Timothy van der Linden wrote....
>Adam,
>
>
>Recent research has indicated that neutrinos are NOT massless. (Best guess
>upto now is 0.07 eV/c^2)
>I added an article from AIP (June) at the end of this letter.
>
Yes I know about those results, and if they were massless they wouldn't be
useable as tachyons. Cramer suggested they might be tachyons if they had
negative mass values. Aren't atmospheric anomaly neutrinos muon neutrinos
anyway?
>Regarding plugging in values for v>c in Einstein's equations:
>For some odd reason people use known formulas to extend predictions without
>having ANY reason that the known formula is even slightly more valid than
>any other odd equation.
>So, I see no reason for Einstein's equations to be valid for values of v>c,
>since there is no data available to make ANY extension more valid than an
>other. Hence suggesting that we need to find imaginary mass or energy
>before thinking about FTL makes little sense.
>It could be just as well that no energy at all is needed for apparant
>velocities larger than c. After all translation doesn't need any energy.
>
>>Coupled to a suitable power source a
>>coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
>>Universe.
>
>Any reason for a *coherent* beam? Do incoherent tachyons not transfer
>momentum?
>
If neutrinos were tachyons they'd need to be produced in a coherent beam,
else there'd be NO net thrust, aside from the slight absorption by the
ship's structure. Neutrino reactions with the chlorine and other neutrino
reactive atoms in our bodies would kill us before there was a useable thrust
achieved.
Also note the report was of a mass DIFFERENCE between neutrino species, not
the actual mass. The case is still open.
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:34:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["407" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "22:27:43" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "17" "Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 407
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA14512
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA14500
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne4p52.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.52]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA12327 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:27:44 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <001301be00dc$09148f20$34fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:27:43 +1000
Kelly wrote...
From: KellySt@aol.com <KellySt@aol.com>
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: Monday, 26 October 1998 2:48
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
>
>Even relativistic star-travel gets nasty with all the collisions. Your
>starship bow thinks its on the wrong end of an ion cannon.
>
>
Best way I've ever heard it put.
Adam
From VM Mon Oct 26 09:34:19 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2118" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "22:36:51" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2118
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA15102
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA15089
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne4p52.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.52]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14780; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:36:56 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <001801be00dd$52655e60$34fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Cc: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:36:51 +1000
Hi Group,
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Marlin <rmarlin@network-one.com>
To: L. Parker <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Cc: Starship Design <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Date: Monday, 26 October 1998 4:37
Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
>>Why is that silly? For roughly 3500 million years, light leaving the solar
>system has been "tagged" with the spectral signature of water vapor and
free
>oxygen, as well as methane and ozone.
Free-oxygen from about ~ 2 billion years ago, and high levels from about 0.6
billion.
Any space faring civilization capable of
>interferometry would have known by now that we are prime real estate. A
radio
>transmission would only prove that the animals here can use tools, and
perhaps
>participate in a mutually beneficial exchange of biological and cultural
>information.
>
Which, if they're K3, they probably have better things to do with their time
than listen to us say "hey don't you think digital watches and pocket
computers are cool?" Or worse "Here's the first thousand prime numbers.
Aren't we smart?"
>As for conquering a distant K1 civilization, why resort to killing one or
two
>when you can kill off everything? An overly hostile and paranoid group of
aliens
>(there are probably a few), might decide to launch nanotech spores or von
>Neumann devices that seek and destroy planets like Earth. By now, we would
have
>been overrun.
>
Why not crash two hundred km across comets into planets - it'd turn the
crust and upper mantle into super-hot molten-rock. Instant sterilisation.
>Speaking of vN, there are probably a few drifting around in some quiet part
of
>the Sol system right now.
>
>
Duncan Lunan wrote on this recently in "Analog". He thinks that his L-5
probe might still be floating around solar-space stealthing it as a bit of
asteroid. Some interesting observations of a certain small asteroid fly-by
support his case.
Is anyone in charge of this mailing list? Can someone set an agenda?
We keep arguing about what we can't know - will the bugs kill us? are there
ETs doing it out there too? is FTL possible? blah blah blah...
Adam
>
From VM Mon Oct 26 11:53:33 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["179" "Sun" "25" "October" "1998" "23:50:57" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "9" "starship-design: Subject on topic?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 179
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08662
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08612
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem692.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.180])
by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA25467
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:28:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981025235057.00691e58@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Subject on topic?
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:50:57 +0100
To those who it concerns,
There is no penalty to change the subject of a reply once the message
contains nothing at all related to the subject of the message!
Thanks,
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 26 14:49:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1392" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "22:46:59" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "33" "starship-design: What is SD about?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1392
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04585
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04553
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem673.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.161])
by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA26272
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:04:12 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026224659.006e1590@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <001801be00dd$52655e60$34fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: What is SD about?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:46:59 +0100
>Is anyone in charge of this mailing list?
No, not in the sense that someone directs were we have to go.
>Can someone set an agenda?
If you have suggestions, you are free to try them out.
>We keep arguing about what we can't know - will the bugs kill us? are there
>ETs doing it out there too? is FTL possible? blah blah blah...
These subjects are merely those of the last two or three weeks.
The month before that we've mainly have been discussing engines. The
trouble with that subject is that it has been spoken about very thoroughly
and that thus we soon will arrive at reasons of why something isn't
feasable or something else may be better.
Subjects that we haven't discussed *as often* (but still several times) are
human factors, payload and mission objectives.
All of these do depend on the propulsion system (and travel time), but can
be discussed for specific designs as well. (Lee's "engine parameters"
letters of a few weeks ago were meant to use for this purpose.)
I'm not sure why these subjects are less frequent, maybe it is because they
appear to be the smallest problem.
Anyhow bugs and decontamination are very well part of mission objectives.
And some feel that intelligent aliens are too. (They suggest armament
against hostile aliens.)
FTL is merely something that is so high on everybody's wishlist that we
sometimes just can't resist bringing it up.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 26 14:49:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1249" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "21:43:18" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Neutrinos" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1249
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04560
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04498
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem673.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.161])
by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA26223
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:04:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026214318.00690828@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <000201be00db$4dc8ddc0$34fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Neutrinos
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:43:18 +0100
Adam,
>>Recent research has indicated that neutrinos are NOT massless. (Best guess
>>upto now is 0.07 eV/c^2)
>>I added an article from AIP (June) at the end of this letter.
>
>Yes I know about those results, and if they were massless they wouldn't be
>useable as tachyons. Cramer suggested they might be tachyons if they had
>negative mass values. Aren't atmospheric anomaly neutrinos muon neutrinos
>anyway?
"Anomaly" neutrinos? I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
(The neutrinos from the Sun and space aren't anomalous and are likely of
all 3 generations (electron-, muon-, taon-neutrinos).)
>>Any reason for a *coherent* beam? Do incoherent tachyons not transfer
>>momentum?
>
>If neutrinos were tachyons they'd need to be produced in a coherent beam,
>else there'd be NO net thrust, aside from the slight absorption by the
>ship's structure. Neutrino reactions with the chlorine and other neutrino
>reactive atoms in our bodies would kill us before there was a useable thrust
>achieved.
Ah, coherent as in unidirectional. OK, that's right.
>Also note the report was of a mass DIFFERENCE between neutrino species, not
>the actual mass. The case is still open.
Ah yes I see, my interpretation of the 0.07 was incorrect.
Timothy
From VM Mon Oct 26 14:49:16 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1578" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "21:30:14" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1578
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04558
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04494
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem673.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.161])
by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA26181
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:04:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981026213014.006a87a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <19981025.171019.14518.1.jon_jay1@juno.com>
References: <3.0.1.32.19981026001041.0068bc54@pop.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:30:14 +0100
To Jon(athan),
>>You are assuming that the alien bacteria evolved a defence against their
>>Earthly enemies and that these alien bacteria might not be food for
>>that-spot's-fittest bacteria.
>>It may seem as if I'm making fun of you, but to me this seems a number
>>game, the largest group is most likely to win.
>>
>
>Not necessarily. You could have a ton of bacteria and a few of a
>different, stronger kind, and the stronger could win. We have plenty of
>bacteria in our bodies,yet we are still prone to illness. A heavyweight
>wrestler could take on dozens of 10 year olds, and who do you think would
>win? That also brings up the question "Can they sufficient resistance?"
Yes, that indeed is a possibility, although not very likely, since the
alien bacteria should be able to beat many different kinds of bacteria that
have many different attack methods.
For this I guess a genetic history of much much more than 1 billion years
(estimated history of Earth's bacteria) seems to be necessary, assuming it
is possible at all.
Quite soon, your now multiplied wrestlers will run into the angry parents
of the 10 year olds and the rest of the community...
Note that I'm not talking about critters (multi-celled beings), they have
far more ways to defend themselves and to adjust themselves to their
environment. Their disadvantage is that they need much more time to
reproduce and that they usually need a partner to do so.
Afterall, Earth's bacteria have a history of almost 4 billion years (and
maybe longer if they did arrive from outside our solar system).
Timothy
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1744" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "20:59:43" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1744
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13068
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13060
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RAAa02343
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:43 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <e46cd997.3635290f@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:43 EST
In a message dated 10/24/98 5:43:03 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:
>Kevin Houston wrote:
>
>> What if a ship, going just below light speed, could cause each
>> of it's subatomic particles to tunnel in the same direction and
>> at the same time. Wouldn't the ship be traveling faster than
>> the speed of light?
>
>Technically, yes, if you do it right. But how do you cause an entire
>ship to quantum tunnel at once? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would
>give you problems.
>
>> Firing retro rockets at that point, would
>> cause the ship to travel even faster, and when we re-emerged
>> from the tunneling, we would find ourselves going just a bit
>> higher than light speed.
>
>I have no idea what would happen in this case.
>
>> could it be
>> possible to make a macroscopic item behave quantumly, by making
>> all of the object's atoms behave quantumly, at the same time and
>> in the same manner.
>
>Absolutely. Its called a "Bose-Einstein Condensate." Do a search about
>superfluid helium. But still, how do you get this to quantum tunnel? And
>how do you convert a manned ship to a quantum entity without
>killing/damaging the crew/ship?
>
>> Of course this level of control is not even remotely possible,
>
>With a B-E condensate, if I understand it correctly, you need not
>control each atom. The condensate behaves as one single quantum entity.
>Therefore you may need to control only one entity.
Ah the problem is that a B-E condensate is where a large number of atoms or
particals are condensed into a single atomic/partical volumn. In theory you
could store toms of hydrogen in the area of one H atom, but if you condensed a
ship down to that volume you would not have a ship anymore.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1269" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "20:59:52" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1269
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13233
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13206
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2ZAMa02083
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:52 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <b400da97.36352918@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:52 EST
In a message dated 10/24/98 4:36:26 PM, kevin@urly-bird.com wrote:
>Hi, It has been suggested that travel above the speed of light
>is possible, but no one has any idea how to skip travel exactly
>at the speed of light. I have also seen people discussing that
>tunneling particles travel in zero time, so it got me thinking...
>
>What if a ship, going just below light speed, could cause each
>of it's subatomic particles to tunnel in the same direction and
>at the same time. Wouldn't the ship be traveling faster than
>the speed of light? Firing retro rockets at that point, would
>cause the ship to travel even faster, and when we re-emerged
>from the tunneling, we would find ourselves going just a bit
>higher than light speed.
>
>I'm only speculating on the simultaneous tunneling, not the FTL
>travel, I don't want to rehash all the FTL stuff. could it be
>possible to make a macroscopic item behave quantumly, by making
>all of the object's atoms behave quantumly, at the same time and
>in the same manner. But controlling each one individually.
>
>Of course this level of control is not even remotely possible,
>I'm just dreaming out loud here.
>
>--
>Kevin Houston
I suppose in theory its a maybe. Haven't a clue beyond that though.
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1782" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "20:59:48" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1782
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13084
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13069
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GENa10655
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:48 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <f4c40f89.36352914@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: RE: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:48 EST
In a message dated 10/25/98 1:22:01 PM, rmarlin@network-one.com wrote:
>> > I do not have in mind our "normal" broadcasts:
>> > first, they are undirected and low power (as others pointed out,
>> > practically undetectable at interstellar distances), and they are
>> > at most 50 ly away now, so we have still some time left
>> > to work of being more fit...
>> > I thought about intentional, narrow-beam broadcasts
>> > (using our radar equipment) aimed at particular stars,
>> > especialy close ones. I consider it silly,
>> > equally as putting a plaque on Voyagers with coordinates
>> > of our solar system
>
>Why is that silly? For roughly 3500 million years, light leaving the solar
>system has been "tagged" with the spectral signature of water vapor and free
>oxygen, as well as methane and ozone. Any space faring civilization capable
of
>interferometry would have known by now that we are prime real estate. A radio
>transmission would only prove that the animals here can use tools, and
perhaps
>participate in a mutually beneficial exchange of biological and cultural
>information.
>
>As for conquering a distant K1 civilization, why resort to killing one or two
>when you can kill off everything? An overly hostile and paranoid group of
aliens
>(there are probably a few), might decide to launch nanotech spores or von
>Neumann devices that seek and destroy planets like Earth. By now, we would
have
>been overrun.
>
>Speaking of vN, there are probably a few drifting around in some quiet part
of
>the Sol system right now.
Well now there an image that will keep us up at night. ;)
Seriously thou it does raise questions. Even one such paraniod race could
devastate large tracks of the galaxy. Hope we don't go out there and find
were in a galactic war?
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["4439" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "20:59:40" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "102" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 4439
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13094
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13087
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2GYZa02328
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:40 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <9e38b817.3635290c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:59:40 EST
In a message dated 10/25/98 11:25:26 AM, you wrote:
>Hello Kelly,
>
>>>I think it is quite save to say that there isn't any fertile spot on Earth
>>>were there aren't bacteria already. These bacteria likely have
>>>overtaken/driven away all weaker kinds of bacteria and thus are the fittest
>>>and most numerous for that particular spot.
>>
>>Your asuming they have an evolved defence against the intruders (unlikly)
and
>>that the bacteria themselves might not be the food for the intruder. Even
>>tiny samples of more toxic bacteria introduced into a filled culture, will
>>whip out the rest of the stuff in the culture.
>
>You are assuming that the alien bacteria evolved a defence against their
>Earthly enemies and that these alien bacteria might not be food for
>that-spot's-fittest bacteria.
>It may seem as if I'm making fun of you, but to me this seems a number
>game, the largest group is most likely to win.
Its probably more a game of luck. Proabably most invading bugs would be
whiped out, but if one strain survives it could have stagering impacts.
>>>The likelyhood of survival of a few bacteria that are not (yet) adapted to
>>>that spot is therefore small. Assuming the spot is suitable for the new
>>>bacteria, they'd need to be much stronger to get the overhand while being
>>>attacked by a majority that has the advantage of being adapted best to the
>>>particular spot.
>
>====================================================================
>
>>>>That only works on bacteria that are sensative to temps. Some can survive
>>>>(even thrive) in swings of hundreds of degrees. Also our body only runs a
>>>>feaver if it senses a infection it knows to react against.
>>>
>>>Survival is something very different from thriving. I doubt that there are
>>>bacteria that can thrive in a large range of temperatures.
>>
>>There are. The ones merntioned above handel frezing to hundreds of degrees
>>water just fine. They can survive far worse.
>
>But these bacteria cannot possibly be equally comfortable along the whole
>temperature range. In general there is only a small temperature range where
>a range of chemical reactions will happen fastest. This small range is the
>only "place" where the bacteria can thrive fastest. For bacteria that
>attack humans this temperature optimum is likely our body temperature, thus
>any deviation from that will slow their development.
Some bacteria can do well in a rediculas range. MOst we are familure with at
least prefer moderate liquid water temps. But who knows.
>>Many unnatural substances can be introduced without reactino. the deseases
>>that kill us specifically are ones the body often does not react to
effectivly
>>or at all.
>
>Only substances that already are present in the human body, or substances
>that look like substances present in the human body will not be attacked.
Not true. Many subnstances trigger no reaction if imbeded. (Medical implants
naturally use a lot of them. Many microbes (generally harmless) are ignored
by the body and trigger no reaction. Until the immune system detects
something like a virus is dangerous it triggers no reaction.
>>>No, some creatures just can quickly enough find spots where our body's
>>>immune system is very ineffective or hardly notices it. Other substances
>>>like poisons are just attacking too fast for our body the react against (if
>>>they are in large enough quantities). In general relative small quantities
>>>won't make much of a chance.
>>
>>Poisons can work quickly or take years. They are just chemical componds.
If
>>the body doesn't normally break them down and excreat them safely, we get
>>hurt.
>
>Poisons that work over years are usually substances that are present in our
>bodies, but normally in small quantities.
No I was thinking more along the line of heavy metal contamination, where te
bodies processes are disrupted chemically, but our bodies have no natural
ability to purge them.
>For many substances the body
>excretes what is too much, but in some cases that isn't possible.
>Poisons that act quickly, will for example clot the blood, or do something
>else that immobilizes or slows down our immune system.
>Poisons that work over the years are attacked by our body. We usually die
>because our body has to do too much work excreting and fighting the poison
>for an extensive time. (eg. our liver may break down)
Thats a good example too.
>
>Timothy
Kelly
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["704" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "22:49:59" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "14" "starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 704
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01391
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01325
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com)
by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DSJTCKQQ; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:50:20 EST
Message-ID: <19981026.225001.4998.1.jon_jay1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-8
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay)
From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay)
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:49:59 -0600
I must say, I trust these "10 year olds" would be by themselves, meaning
a single group of bacteria. "Parents" would imply another stronger party,
or another kind of bacteria. Being a relative is a possibility, but I
doubt one bacteria would consciously help another defeat a third. It's a
double team! Now maybe there are these kind of bacteria on other worlds;
maybe even here ( I'm not well educated on the topic), but I've never
heard of them.
Jon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
From VM Tue Oct 27 09:34:29 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1510" "Mon" "26" "October" "1998" "23:29:20" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "29" "starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1510
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA09682
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [206.163.176.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09677
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA13516
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA32359;
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:29:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13877.30288.905389.435377@localhost.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <363246DD.4C70144@urly-bird.com>
References: <363246DD.4C70144@urly-bird.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: crossing the light speed barrier?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 23:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Kevin Houston writes:
> What if a ship, going just below light speed, could cause each
> of it's subatomic particles to tunnel in the same direction and
> at the same time. Wouldn't the ship be traveling faster than
> the speed of light? Firing retro rockets at that point, would
> cause the ship to travel even faster, and when we re-emerged
> from the tunneling, we would find ourselves going just a bit
> higher than light speed.
If quantum tunnelling really worked that way, we'd already have
FTL. Even if quantum tunnelling really takes zero time (hmm, I
don't think so) it's obvious that it can't be repeated frequently
enough to move a particle FTL. Quantum tunnelling is really a
result of nonlocality. Sometimes you just happen to be able to
observe a particle outside a potential barrier because its wave
function extends through the barrier; the particle does not move
through the barrier in the sense of instantaneous translation, it
just always happened to have a small probability of being outside
rather than inside.
Note that to the ship itself, c is just as far away as it always
has been no matter how fast some other observer considers the
ship to be going. So the potential barrier the ship would have
to tunnel through is infinitely high, and the probability it
could tunnel from a state where it's going slower than c to one
where it's going faster than c is still zero.
We may as well allow the infinite improbability drive. Anyone
got a really hot cup of tea?
From VM Tue Oct 27 12:05:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1433" "Tue" "27" "October" "1998" "19:44:41" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1433
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24835
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA24766
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem1207.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.183])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18671
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981027194441.00711040@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <19981026.225001.4998.1.jon_jay1@juno.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Bugs again
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:44:41 +0100
Jon,
>I must say, I trust these "10 year olds" would be by themselves, meaning
>a single group of bacteria. "Parents" would imply another stronger party,
>or another kind of bacteria. Being a relative is a possibility, but I
>doubt one bacteria would consciously help another defeat a third.
Hmmm, it some of my words have had more influence than others.
Let me try again: I did not intend to suggest that bacteria would help each
other. I meant to say that while species A cannot win from B, and B cannot
win from C, it does not mean that C always wins from A.
The mathematical A<B and B<C thus A<C does not hold. It could very well be
that A does have an attack mechanism that B does not have, yet B may be
able to protect itself adequately against A but not against C.
Now an example without A,B and C:
Suppose that among the normal children, some kids have a weapon that does
not work well against other children, but only against larger beings.
While normally these children will have a small disadvantage compared to
normal children (eg. because they have to drag along the weapon all the
time), their fate may change quickly once the other children are attacked
by say a wrestler.
Since there will be many kinds of bacteria in a relative small area, the
alien bacteria will have to be able to resist and conquer a lot of them
before it can say to have established a relative save/large enough
population size.
Timothy
From VM Tue Oct 27 12:05:40 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1329" "Tue" "27" "October" "1998" "19:27:12" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "31" "starship-design: Re: Bugs again" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1329
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24760
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA24672
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem1207.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.183])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18617
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:44:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981027192712.006e4d3c@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <9e38b817.3635290c@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Bugs again
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:27:12 +0100
Kelly,
>>Only substances that already are present in the human body, or substances
>>that look like substances present in the human body will not be attacked.
>
>Not true. Many subnstances trigger no reaction if imbeded. (Medical
implants
>naturally use a lot of them. Many microbes (generally harmless) are ignored
>by the body and trigger no reaction. Until the immune system detects
>something like a virus is dangerous it triggers no reaction.
One of the actions that the body can undertake against a foreign body is
encapsulation. This is what happens with medical implants, the body will
try to close in the implant. (As will happen with bullets that are not
removed.)
Microbes are not ignored, unless they have proteins at their outside that
make them look as if they are part of the body.
>>Poisons that work over years are usually substances that are present in our
>>bodies, but normally in small quantities.
>
>No I was thinking more along the line of heavy metal contamination, where te
>bodies processes are disrupted chemically, but our bodies have no natural
>ability to purge them.
Heavy metals are what I intended. They are present in our body in small
quantities, often to work as catalysts. But in too large quantities these
metals will make certain essential chemical reactions impossible.
Timothy
From VM Tue Oct 27 13:52:27 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1006" "Wed" "28" "October" "1998" "07:30:39" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Neutrinos" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1006
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23337
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23324
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:30:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne3p35.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.227]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18935 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:30:46 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <001f01be01f1$0d249540$e3fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Neutrinos
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:30:39 +1000
Hi Group,
Timothy van der Linden wrote...
>
>>Aren't atmospheric anomaly neutrinos muon neutrinos
>>anyway?
>
>"Anomaly" neutrinos? I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
>(The neutrinos from the Sun and space aren't anomalous and are likely of
>all 3 generations (electron-, muon-, taon-neutrinos).)
That's what they call the neutrinos created by cosmic rays cracking up in
the atmosphere. I didn't think the Sun produced any tauon neutrinos, though,
even with oscillations.
>>Also note the report was of a mass DIFFERENCE between neutrino species,
not
>>the actual mass. The case is still open.
>
>Ah yes I see, my interpretation of the 0.07 was incorrect.
>
>Timothy
>
I spoke to John Cramer about the neutrino findings soon after they came in,
and he said the "neutrinos are tachyon" thing is still possible. Would be
really cool since you'd be able to hover on a beam of neutrinos without
drawing any power [except to generate the beam] and so on... Read his
article, it's on-line.
Adam
From VM Tue Oct 27 13:57:10 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2992" "Wed" "28" "October" "1998" "07:48:15" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: What is SD about?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2992
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03947
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03916
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:48:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne3p35.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.227]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24950 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:48:19 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <002c01be01f3$816c6d40$e3fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: What is SD about?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:48:15 +1000
Hi Group,
Tim van der Linden wrote...
[in reply to my gripes]
>>Is anyone in charge of this mailing list?
>
>No, not in the sense that someone directs were we have to go.
>
>>Can someone set an agenda?
>
>If you have suggestions, you are free to try them out.
>
>>We keep arguing about what we can't know - will the bugs kill us? are
there
>>ETs doing it out there too? is FTL possible? blah blah blah...
>
>These subjects are merely those of the last two or three weeks.
>The month before that we've mainly have been discussing engines. The
>trouble with that subject is that it has been spoken about very thoroughly
>and that thus we soon will arrive at reasons of why something isn't
>feasable or something else may be better.
>
>Subjects that we haven't discussed *as often* (but still several times) are
>human factors, payload and mission objectives.
>All of these do depend on the propulsion system (and travel time), but can
>be discussed for specific designs as well. (Lee's "engine parameters"
>letters of a few weeks ago were meant to use for this purpose.)
>
>I'm not sure why these subjects are less frequent, maybe it is because they
>appear to be the smallest problem.
>
>Anyhow bugs and decontamination are very well part of mission objectives.
>And some feel that intelligent aliens are too. (They suggest armament
>against hostile aliens.)
>FTL is merely something that is so high on everybody's wishlist that we
>sometimes just can't resist bringing it up.
>
>Timothy
>
>
Now I feel stupid for griping about what are reasonable issues. I guess
mission designs and so forth are also quite relevant to the greater scheme
of things, especially since we're talking about starship design in general.
I guess I was just frustrated with what seemed to be irrelevant debates
about exo-pathogens and FTL. I was hoping that someone had settled on a
drive system and was actively pursuing a worked out design, but really this
discussion is more open ended.
If we are going to discuss FTL let's ask ourselves just what sort of FTL do
we imagine - instantaneous, very-fast or a few times c. If a flight to Tau
Ceti takes a year or two how does that affect our designs? If ships can go
FTL what about signals? etc. FTL might be possible but it might also be
horribly expensive - i.e. we might have to implode Jupiter to create a
wormhole. Or it could be as easy as a James Blish spindizzy [Dillon-Wagoner
Graviton Polarizer] which can run off car-batteries. Currently I have no
preferred opinions, but I don't think it will be easy.
What's the best "foreseeable" design for a drive that has been discussed
here? I've vaguely heard about a combination of beam-launched
fusion-propelled system. Will we need to send fuel-mining equipment along so
they can get back?
Adam
Of course the government of +2050 might have certain people that it wants to
send on one-way colonisation missions. I imagined Mercury would be the best
place to send dissidents, but Tau Ceti might be better.
From VM Wed Oct 28 11:51:00 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1414" "Wed" "28" "October" "1998" "20:31:07" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: What is SD about?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1414
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA18649
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:33:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA18575
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem1201.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.177])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA00447
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:33:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981028203107.006d9db4@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <002c01be01f3$816c6d40$e3fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: What is SD about?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:31:07 +0100
Hi Alan,
>I was hoping that someone had settled on a
>drive system and was actively pursuing a worked out design, but really this
>discussion is more open ended.
I believe there are two designs out there, but they haven't been updated
for quite some time.
>If we are going to discuss FTL let's ask ourselves just what sort of FTL do
>we imagine - instantaneous, very-fast or a few times c.
So far we haven't actually thought about a mission that can use virtually
instantaneous travel. But we might set limits as we did for normal engines.
I wouldn't know if it is really sensible though.
>What's the best "foreseeable" design for a drive that has been discussed
>here? I've vaguely heard about a combination of beam-launched
>fusion-propelled system. Will we need to send fuel-mining equipment along so
>they can get back?
We've:
- electromagnetic (light/microwaves) beamed starships.
- take-all-fuel-with-you ships (mostly fusion, or fusion with
a bit of antimatter)
- take-only-acceleration-and-deceleration-fuel-with-you ships, and refuel
at the target.
- launch-fuel-in-advance-and-scoop-it-along-the-way ship.
Energy wise the latter is probably the best (unless we've a matter &
antimatter drive with fuel), but whether it is easiest?
Regarding the beamed design, a year ago I made up a list with pros and
cons, you may find it at <http://www.xs4all.nl/~shealiak/sd/beaming/beam.html>
Timothy
From VM Thu Oct 29 09:34:57 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["104" "Wed" "28" "October" "1998" "21:32:43" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "6" "starship-design: SETI detection?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 104
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24424
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA24417
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm6-80.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.80])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26790
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:35:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3637FDFB.7759F0A6@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: SETI detection?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:32:43 -0800
For your listening pleasure:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/
???
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Thu Oct 29 14:54:10 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1126" "Wed" "28" "October" "1998" "23:26:00" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Neutrinos" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1126
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05873
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05708
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem1262.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.132.238])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA24247
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:38:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981028232600.0068b878@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
In-Reply-To: <001f01be01f1$0d249540$e3fa6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Neutrinos
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:26:00 +0100
Adam,
>>"Anomaly" neutrinos? I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
>>(The neutrinos from the Sun and space aren't anomalous and are likely of
>>all 3 generations (electron-, muon-, tauon-neutrinos).)
>
>That's what they call the neutrinos created by cosmic rays cracking up in
>the atmosphere. I didn't think the Sun produced any tauon neutrinos, though,
>even with oscillations.
Clearly electron neutrinos will be in the majority. But statistically there
must be a some muon- and even fewer tauon neutrinos.
I wonder if cosmic rays (gamma rays?) will actually generate a lot of
neutrinos when being absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere.
>I spoke to John Cramer about the neutrino findings soon after they came in,
>and he said the "neutrinos are tachyon" thing is still possible. Would be
>really cool since you'd be able to hover on a beam of neutrinos without
>drawing any power [except to generate the beam] and so on...
His idea is based on the possibility that neutrinos have imaginary mass. I
can't imagine how his case would hold once there is evidence that their
mass is real and positive.
Timothy
From VM Fri Oct 30 10:08:02 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1538" "Thu" "29" "October" "1998" "21:34:17" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is SD about?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1538
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01294
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01287
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2DYVa04680
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:34:17 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <deb322b4.363925a9@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is SD about?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:34:17 EST
In a message dated 10/28/98 2:38:42 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote:
>Hi Alan,
>
>>I was hoping that someone had settled on a
>>drive system and was actively pursuing a worked out design, but really this
>>discussion is more open ended.
>
>I believe there are two designs out there, but they haven't been updated
>for quite some time.
Well there were 4.
M.A.R.S. Microwave augmented rocket system. What beamed microwaves are
focused to drive a rocket to boost toward the sol beam source. Microwave sail
is used for thrust away from beam. Not very well developed.
My two
Explorer and fuel sail. Both use Lithium-6 fusion fuel rockets. They carry a
big slug of it to decelerate into the target system, and mine enough there to
boost there way back home. Leaveing or decelerating into our solar system
they get "power" from us back home. Explorer gets a stream of fusion fuel
packets launched to it. Fuel/Sail uses a microwave beam sent to bounce off a
microwave sail. At launch from our star system Fuel/Sail's sail is a huge
wire mesh. The wire is the spun out deceleration fuel. (The reason I liked
Lithium-6 is that it can server as a structural metal.) Both of mine can do
about .3c to .4c.
The last on was Tradewinds. Which I think was someones idea where a slow
robot probe is sent ahead to construct a massive microwave array system.
Whewn done light microwave sail craft can zing back and forth quickly.
A few other ideas have been discused, but not submited for inclusion when I
did the last LIT update.
Kelly
From VM Mon Nov 2 09:57:44 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1300" "Sat" "31" "October" "1998" "14:41:10" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: SETI detection?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1300
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01389
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01379
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne11p08.ozemail.com.au [203.108.235.200]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA03988 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:41:30 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <363A94E4.A98DF282@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3637FDFB.7759F0A6@sunherald.infi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: SETI detection?
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:41:10 +1000
Hi Group,
"Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote:
> For your listening pleasure:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/7193/
>
> ???
> Kyle R. Mcallister
BIG ????
Seems quasi-legit, rather than being a Web goose-chase. We'll hear about
it in the news in a few days if that press conference goes ahead [Nov 4]
so let's wait and see. I liked the bit about it perhaps being a
navigational beacon of a starship heading our way.... that'd be freaky.
If EQ Pegasi has been visited by ETIs and that signal's a starship/probe
transmission I wonder if we can't detect their drive system in
operation. We might if they were using magnetic sails to deccelerate. A
few million should be spent on setting up a mag-sail detector, then we
might get a clearer idea of what's happening in our cosmic neighborhood.
Or maybe EQ Pegasi has a habitable planet. Is there anyway of finding
out if it's been scanned for planets? Might have a close-in Jupiter with
a habitable moon, or maybe the ETIs have an ammonia/water biology.
Rather than N2/O2 like us they'll be breathing N2/H2. That'd be weird.
If EQ Pegasi is confirmed as home to ETIs then we might have ourselves a
target to send our starships to. Can we launch a manned mission to a
star at 22 light years? Or maybe frozen embryos? Please consider...
Adam
From VM Mon Nov 2 09:57:45 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2296" "Mon" "2" "November" "1998" "00:05:14" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "68" "starship-design: Fwd: space study" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2296
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00425
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00414
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OGSa13873
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <72fc6903.363d3d8a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_909983115_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: space study
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:05:14 EST
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_909983115_boundary
Content-ID: <0_909983115@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
In a message dated 10/30/98 2:27:48 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com wrote:
>Lee,
>I read the space study, and the only thing that follows your statement of
"space
>resource mining becomes practical at $100 a pound to LEO" is the He3 mining
>section. I.E. lunar He3 could be cost competative to current electric
>productino fuels at about $100 launch costs. (Of course that assumes you
have
>a
>He3 burning reactor.)
>
>Is that what you were refering to?
>
>Kelly
--part0_909983115_boundary
Content-ID: <0_909983115@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from relay07.mx.aol.com (relay07.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.7]) by
air08.mail.aol.com (v51.9) with SMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:27:48 -0500
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by relay07.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id OAA28235 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:27:47 -0500 (EST)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id NAA05343
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:27:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id NAA05295
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:27:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00157883; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:30:05 -0600
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:26:52 -0600
Message-ID: <00157883.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: space study
To: kellyst@aol.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Lee,
I read the space study, and the only thing that follows your statement of
"space
resource mining becomes practical at $100 a pound to LEO" is the He3 mining
section. I.E. lunar He3 could be cost competative to current electric
productino fuels at about $100 launch costs. (Of course that assumes you have
a
He3 burning reactor.)
Is that what you were refering to?
Kelly
--part0_909983115_boundary--
From VM Mon Nov 2 09:57:45 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["490" "Mon" "2" "November" "1998" "00:05:18" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: Re: starship-design: SETI detection?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 490
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00687
for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00672
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2OJUa07909
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:05:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3e8804b0.363d3d8e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: SETI detection?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:05:18 EST
Interresting Kyle. I do find it suspicious that someone seems to have found
something just before halloween 50 years after the Well's War of the World
broadcast. But then would a Brit telemetry admin guy know that, much less
care
enough to risk his job?
Also interesting that the plenetary society froze their auto updating web page
at the time this was geting anounced by the BBC. If its a hoax or error folks
will be upset. Finmd out soon I guess.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Kelly
From VM Mon Nov 2 09:57:45 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1791" "Mon" "2" "November" "1998" "07:13:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@gnt.net" nil "41" "RE: starship-design: Fwd: space study" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1791
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17801
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:14:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA17796
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from halberd (p195.gnt.com [204.49.89.195])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA22108
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:14:25 -0600
Message-ID: <000001be0662$9196e6a0$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <72fc6903.363d3d8a@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Fwd: space study
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:13:22 -0600
> In a message dated 10/30/98 2:27:48 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com wrote:
>
> >Lee,
> >I read the space study, and the only thing that follows your statement of
> "space
> >resource mining becomes practical at $100 a pound to LEO" is the
> He3 mining
> >section. I.E. lunar He3 could be cost competative to current electric
> >productino fuels at about $100 launch costs. (Of course that assumes you
> have
> >a
> >He3 burning reactor.)
> >
> >Is that what you were refering to?
> >
> >Kelly
Partly. There are sections there for almost any kind of commerce in space
conceivable. Most of them come back to a figure of $100/lb to orbit (or
less). Currently, the best we can even HOPE for with launchers under
development is $1,000/lb, which is still a lot better than what we currently
have. There were one or two that have much higher break points such as the
communications industry, etc., but these can all be serviced easily with the
current generation of small launchers. Some of them are even going up on
salvaged ICBMs!
One of the reasons why the DC-X was so attractive was that it stood the best
chance of reaching extremely low payload to orbit prices. As I am sure you
appreciate, much of the cost of any orbital launch is in the ground based
infrastructure required to make it happen. DC-X did not require any of that
infrastructure. In fact, it could have been used as a lander on your
Explorer with no modifications. It was quite capable of orbit to surface and
return operations, something the shuttle derivatives will never do.
Lee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
can assume it will be pretty bad.
From VM Mon Nov 2 14:32:51 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["486" "Sun" "1" "November" "1998" "15:31:54" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "16" "starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 486
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17456
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17427
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm6-74.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.74])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02995
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:35:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <363CEF6A.4C532C29@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3e8804b0.363d3d8e@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 15:31:54 -0800
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> But then would a Brit telemetry admin guy know that, much less
> care enough to risk his job?
I don't know. People are strange sometimes. YOu never know what they're
thinking. I'd like this to be the real thing, and there is some evidence
that it might be, (3 other confirmations of some signal), but I'll make
my judgement later on.
> Thanks for bringing it up.
Not a problem. I'll let you know if anything earthshattering happens ;)
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Mon Nov 2 14:44:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["561" "Mon" "2" "November" "1998" "16:33:06" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@gnt.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 561
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA17862
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA17841
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from halberd (p267.gnt.com [204.49.91.27])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA19596
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:34:22 -0600
Message-ID: <000101be06b0$c3320ac0$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <363CEF6A.4C532C29@sunherald.infi.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:33:06 -0600
> KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
> > But then would a Brit telemetry admin guy know that, much less
> > care enough to risk his job?
>
> I don't know. People are strange sometimes. YOu never know what they're
> thinking. I'd like this to be the real thing, and there is some evidence
> that it might be, (3 other confirmations of some signal), but I'll make
> my judgement later on.
>
> > Thanks for bringing it up.
>
> Not a problem. I'll let you know if anything earthshattering happens ;)
>
I'd rather it wasn't the real thing...its too bloody close.
Lee
From VM Tue Nov 3 11:30:34 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1582" "Wed" "4" "November" "1998" "05:22:43" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: DC-X etc." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1582
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA29139
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29021
for <Starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne6p58.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.186]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21809 for <Starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 06:23:11 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <363F5802.2CC1D6A5@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000001be0662$9196e6a0$0100a8c0@halberd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: Starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: DC-X etc.
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 05:22:43 +1000
Hi Group
"L. Parker" wrote:
>
> One of the reasons why the DC-X was so attractive was that it stood the best
> chance of reaching extremely low payload to orbit prices. As I am sure you
> appreciate, much of the cost of any orbital launch is in the ground based
> infrastructure required to make it happen. DC-X did not require any of that
> infrastructure. In fact, it could have been used as a lander on your
> Explorer with no modifications. It was quite capable of orbit to surface and
> return operations, something the shuttle derivatives will never do.
>
> Lee
Another attractive aspect of DC-X and derivatives was the vertical landing
capability, which gave it the potential for lunar operations with very little
need for further development. Just tank up in orbit and kick into a lunar
landing trajectory. Refuelling for such a mission could be achieved via an
Energia-class launcher, or once LOX was available from the Moon, even smaller
boosters.
Adam
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
> can assume it will be pretty bad.
Tsk, tsk. That'll get the Animal Liberationists on your back. The fooilsh aspect
of all "ecotopias" is the fact that Earth is not protected from threats from
space. One day a sledgehammer blow will come. Without nukes and space-travel
we're screwed. Isn't it weird how neutron bombs might be the only protection
against rubble-pile asteroids like Mathilde?
From VM Wed Nov 4 10:02:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["837" "Tue" "3" "November" "1998" "21:10:21" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 837
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25777
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25765
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2JHDa13872
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:21 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <1f62e79e.363fb78d@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:21 EST
In a message dated 11/2/98 5:39:30 PM, lparker@gnt.net wrote:
>> KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>
>> > But then would a Brit telemetry admin guy know that, much less
>
>> > care enough to risk his job?
>
>>
>
>> I don't know. People are strange sometimes. YOu never know what they're
>
>> thinking. I'd like this to be the real thing, and there is some evidence
>
>> that it might be, (3 other confirmations of some signal), but I'll make
>
>> my judgement later on.
>
>>
>
>> > Thanks for bringing it up.
>
>>
>
>> Not a problem. I'll let you know if anything earthshattering happens ;)
>
>>
>
>
>
>I'd rather it wasn't the real thing...its too bloody close.
Felling a bit anti social? ;)
One things for sure. Something like this - if confirmed - could boost
interest in a project like our starship senerio. ;)
>Lee
Kelly
From VM Wed Nov 4 10:02:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["656" "Tue" "3" "November" "1998" "21:10:24" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 656
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25911
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25904
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2IOGa17681
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:24 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <4c2e77e7.363fb790@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:24 EST
In a message dated 11/2/98 4:39:39 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> But then would a Brit telemetry admin guy know that, much less
>> care enough to risk his job?
>
>I don't know. People are strange sometimes. YOu never know what they're
>thinking. I'd like this to be the real thing, and there is some evidence
>that it might be, (3 other confirmations of some signal), but I'll make
>my judgement later on.
>
>> Thanks for bringing it up.
>
>Not a problem. I'll let you know if anything earthshattering happens ;)
Somehow I think we might hear about a confirmation one way or the other. ;)
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Kelly
From VM Wed Nov 4 10:02:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2411" "Tue" "3" "November" "1998" "21:10:12" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "86" "Re: RE: starship-design: Fwd: space study" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2411
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25702
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25695
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VWRa02317
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:12 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <6aec05c0.363fb784@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Fwd: space study
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:10:12 EST
In a message dated 11/2/98 8:19:22 AM, lparker@gnt.net wrote:
>> In a message dated 10/30/98 2:27:48 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com wrote:
>
>>
>
>> >Lee,
>
>> >I read the space study, and the only thing that follows your statement of
>
>> "space
>
>> >resource mining becomes practical at $100 a pound to LEO" is the
>
>> He3 mining
>
>> >section. I.E. lunar He3 could be cost competative to current electric
>
>> >productino fuels at about $100 launch costs. (Of course that assumes you
>
>> have
>
>> >a
>
>> >He3 burning reactor.)
>
>> >
>
>> >Is that what you were refering to?
>
>> >
>
>> >Kelly
>
>
>
>Partly. There are sections there for almost any kind of commerce in space
>
>conceivable. Most of them come back to a figure of $100/lb to orbit (or
>
>less). Currently, the best we can even HOPE for with launchers under
>
>development is $1,000/lb, which is still a lot better than what we currently
>
>have. There were one or two that have much higher break points such as the
>
>communications industry, etc., but these can all be serviced easily with the
>
>current generation of small launchers. Some of them are even going up on
>
>salvaged ICBMs!
>
>
>
>One of the reasons why the DC-X was so attractive was that it stood the best
>
>chance of reaching extremely low payload to orbit prices. As I am sure you
>
>appreciate, much of the cost of any orbital launch is in the ground based
>
>infrastructure required to make it happen. DC-X did not require any of that
>
>infrastructure. In fact, it could have been used as a lander on your
>
>Explorer with no modifications. It was quite capable of orbit to surface and
>
>return operations, something the shuttle derivatives will never do.
>
>
>
>Lee
Actually a DC-X like craft could do costs to orbit bellow $200 apound given
some fairly good cercomstances. A very large scale market and a few upgrades
could drop it well below $100 a pound. (I had some frends on the DC-X
program.) More recent Air-turbo-ram-rockets (combined cycle) engine
prototypes could drop costs (in said major market) down to a couple times air
frieght costs.
However He3 mining and the rest listed couldn't provide enough market.
Surface to surface earth transport could (and was mentioned in passing in the
report) but even with that, none of the space resource markets seemed more
then iffy. (Thou they could drop costs to orbit down to $15-$40 a pound.)
Kelly
From VM Wed Nov 4 10:02:26 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["593" "Wed" "4" "November" "1998" "07:43:56" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@gnt.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 593
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23951
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:45:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA23941
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 05:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from halberd (p199.gnt.com [204.49.89.199])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA09043;
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:45:12 -0600
Message-ID: <000301be07f9$2d036180$0100a8c0@halberd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <1f62e79e.363fb78d@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
From: "L. Parker" <lparker@gnt.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <KellySt@aol.com>, <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 07:43:56 -0600
> >I'd rather it wasn't the real thing...its too bloody close.
>
> Felling a bit anti social? ;)
>
> One things for sure. Something like this - if confirmed - could boost
> interest in a project like our starship senerio. ;)
No, just anti-dying. Actually, there is probably very little reason to worry
about Pelegrino's "Killing Star" scenario, but 22 light years is awfully
close. You are right about what it would do for interest in the space
program.
Lee
Law of Superiority
The first example of superior principle is always inferior to the
developed example of inferior principle.
From VM Wed Nov 4 15:33:35 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["936" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "00:20:41" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "16" "starship-design: SETI Hoax?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 936
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06717
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06619
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:21:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from - (dc2-modem650.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.130.138])
by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA13308
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:21:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981105002041.006a7980@pop.xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
From: Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: SETI Hoax?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:20:41 +0100
This I copied from the November edition of SpaceViews:
SETI Hoax?: Claims that a British amateur has discovered a radio
signal from an alien intelligence have been debunked as a hoax by SETI
scientists. The anonymous Briton, later identified as a Mr. Paul
Dore, claimed to have detected a signal from the star EQ Pegasi. His
reports, pushed on a SETI mailing list and elsewhere on the Internet,
were mentioned in a BBC report. However, other amateur and
professional SETI researchers have picked up no signs of such a
signal, although a signal was detected from that star in September by
Project Phoenix at Arecibo but failed to pass their stringent
confirmation checks. "A hacker gone wild," concluded Professor Nathan
Cohen of Boston University. "Too many 'Contact' reruns. Case closed."
Still, Dore claims the signal is true and is reportedly planning a
press conference as early as this week to formally present his claims.
From VM Thu Nov 5 09:54:28 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1963" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "16:54:21" "+1000" "AJ & AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: LEO Costs" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1963
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA16834
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA16820
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ozemail.com.au (slbne2p56.ozemail.com.au [203.108.250.184]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA13264 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:54:51 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <36414B9C.664D7CEF@ozemail.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6aec05c0.363fb784@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: AJ & AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: LEO Costs
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 16:54:21 +1000
Hi Group,
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/2/98 8:19:22 AM, lparker@gnt.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually a DC-X like craft could do costs to orbit below $200 a pound given
> some fairly good circumstances. A very large scale market and a few upgrades
> could drop it well below $100 a pound. (I had some friends on the DC-X
> program.)
Do tell...
> More recent Air-turbo-ram-rockets (combined cycle) engine
> prototypes could drop costs (in said major market) down to a couple times air
> frieght costs.
Likewise. Tell us more. Or give us a URL.
>
>
> However He3 mining and the rest listed couldn't provide enough market.
> Surface to surface earth transport could (and was mentioned in passing in the
> report) but even with that, none of the space resource markets seemed more
> then iffy. (Thou they could drop costs to orbit down to $15-$40 a pound.)
Would be nice to have LEO access at such costs. Like you said though it needs a
big market. How do we boot-strap the market? Ideas? If we want that starship by
2050 we better think of something!
Who's seen the article in "New Scientist" [24 Oct] about a possibly lower GUT
energy? Previous theoretical guesstimates put it at 10^16 GeV, but new theories
are bringing it down to ~ 1000 GeV i.e. achievable by the next generation of
accelerators. If we can achieve GUT unification then we might be able to either
cause matter annihilation or liberate some other kind of particle energy [say a
sustained matter/energy creation reaction.] If this could happen "soon" then our
2050 starship isn't so impossible as we thought. That's if GUT unification occurs
further down the energy scale than previously thought, which depends on the size
of the micro-dimension that particles extend into. If it's 10^-33 cm then its
10^16 GeV, but if it's bigger then the energy is lower.
As for the SETI thing time will tell, but a 44 year round trip time between
messages would be painfully slow.
Adam
From VM Thu Nov 5 13:10:59 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["635" "Wed" "4" "November" "1998" "14:30:47" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: SETI Hoax?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 635
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA11434
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA11425
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm6-93.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.93])
by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21800
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:33:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3640D597.503618B0@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3.0.1.32.19981105002041.006a7980@pop.xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: SETI Hoax?
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:30:47 -0800
Timothy van der Linden wrote:
<snip>
> However, other amateur and
> professional SETI researchers have picked up no signs of such a
> signal...
Apparently SpaceViews got mixed up...two amatuers, K.F. Benton and Jay
Oka confirmed the signal... as did Australia's CSIRO ATNF. But ATNF
dismisses it as a satellite. I find this a bit hard to swallow, due to
the fact the signal has remained at the same RA and Dec, but I suppose
if the orbit of the satellite were weird enough, it could do this. It
certainly isn't geosyncronous as some SETI people have claimed. What
kind of a satellite might transmit at 1453 MHz?
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["495" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "21:56:42" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "starship-design: ET's here" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 495
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14548
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14542
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2AHHa02301
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:56:42 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <b5d488ab.3642656a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: ET's here
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:56:42 EST
>Here's an interesting side-jaunt I happened across;
>
>The Reenchanment (http://www.anv.net/nids/GMatloff_essay.shtml)
The paper suggests we could have ET's in this solar system. old civilizations
could simply colonize asteroid belts and build space colonies. Interesting
paper if nothing else.
I suppose a advanced starfaring race would find asteroid belts the easest to
colonize. Simply build the worlds you want and ignore the dangerous planets.
Far more stars are colonizable.
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["693" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "23:00:14" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 693
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01580
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01565
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2QCQa03975
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:14 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <52470f1d.3642744e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: The SETI thing
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:14 EST
In a message dated 11/4/98 8:45:20 AM, lparker@gnt.net wrote:
>> >I'd rather it wasn't the real thing...its too bloody close.
>
>>
>
>> Felling a bit anti social? ;)
>
>>
>
>> One things for sure. Something like this - if confirmed - could boost
>
>> interest in a project like our starship senerio. ;)
>
>
>
>No, just anti-dying. Actually, there is probably very little reason to worry
>
>about Pelegrino's "Killing Star" scenario, but 22 light years is awfully
>
>close. You are right about what it would do for interest in the space
>
>program.
>
>
>
>Lee
Well it looks like it was a mis ident of a sat, so its a moot point, but it
could have been interesting if it was real.
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2960" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "23:00:21" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "87" "Re: Re: starship-design: LEO Costs" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2960
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01609
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01588;
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id IFUa002302;
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:21 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <8a218668.36427455@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: LEO Costs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:21 EST
In a message dated 11/5/98 1:59:26 AM, ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Hi Group,
>
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 11/2/98 8:19:22 AM, lparker@gnt.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually a DC-X like craft could do costs to orbit below $200 a pound given
>> some fairly good circumstances. A very large scale market and a few
upgrades
>> could drop it well below $100 a pound. (I had some friends on the DC-X
>> program.)
>
>Do tell...
Hey you work at JSC and NASA HQ for a while and you meet people.
>
>> More recent Air-turbo-ram-rockets (combined cycle) engine
>> prototypes could drop costs (in said major market) down to a couple times
air
>> frieght costs.
>
>Likewise. Tell us more. Or give us a URL.
Combined cycle-airbreathing Rocket propulsion
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/2000/2740d.htm
http://spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov/NASA.News/NASA.News.Releases/Previous.News.R
eleases/96.News.Releases/96-07.News.Releases/96-07-11.Air.Breathing.Engine.Tea
ms.Named
http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/releases/1996b/n96135.htm
http://redstone.ae.gatech.edu/~olds/research/research.html
�
MOre interesting but not on the tip of my tonge are articals in Aviation week
on Ejector ramjet and air-turbo ram/rocket systems currently in testing. The
former is intest on a 0 to Mach six first stage HTHL launcher being built by
Space Access inc. Air force is very interested in it.
>>
>> However He3 mining and the rest listed couldn't provide enough market.
>> Surface to surface earth transport could (and was mentioned in passing in
the
>> report) but even with that, none of the space resource markets seemed more
>> then iffy. (Thou they could drop costs to orbit down to $15-$40 a pound.)
>
>Would be nice to have LEO access at such costs. Like you said though it needs
a
>big market. How do we boot-strap the market? Ideas? If we want that
>starship by 2050 we better think of something!
Surface to surface cargo and passenger service, or orbital tourism are about
all I know that could pull it off.
>
>Who's seen the article in "New Scientist" [24 Oct] about a possibly lower GUT
>energy? Previous theoretical guesstimates put it at 10^16 GeV, but new
theories
>are bringing it down to ~ 1000 GeV i.e. achievable by the next generation of
>accelerators. If we can achieve GUT unification then we might be able to
either
>cause matter annihilation or liberate some other kind of particle energy [say
a
>sustained matter/energy creation reaction.] If this could happen "soon" then
our
>2050 starship isn't so impossible as we thought. That's if GUT unification
occurs
>further down the energy scale than previously thought, which depends on the
size
>of the micro-dimension that particles extend into. If it's 10^-33 cm then its
>10^16 GeV, but if it's bigger then the energy is lower.
>
>As for the SETI thing time will tell, but a 44 year round trip time between
>messages would be painfully slow.
>
>Adam
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["888" "Thu" "5" "November" "1998" "23:00:24" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: SETI Hoax?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 888
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01652
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01646
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 2DLEa09168
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:24 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <5adfa56e.36427458@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: SETI Hoax?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:00:24 EST
In a message dated 11/5/98 3:38:48 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:
>Timothy van der Linden wrote:
>
><snip>
>> However, other amateur and
>> professional SETI researchers have picked up no signs of such a
>> signal...
>
>Apparently SpaceViews got mixed up...two amatuers, K.F. Benton and Jay
>Oka confirmed the signal... as did Australia's CSIRO ATNF. But ATNF
>dismisses it as a satellite. I find this a bit hard to swallow, due to
>the fact the signal has remained at the same RA and Dec, but I suppose
>if the orbit of the satellite were weird enough, it could do this. It
>certainly isn't geosyncronous as some SETI people have claimed. What
>kind of a satellite might transmit at 1453 MHz?
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
Follow up post by the guy says it was a military sat. He supposedly was shown
enough proof to be convinced (and was sick of all the hassel) so he droped it.
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1576" "Fri" "6" "November" "1998" "11:48:06" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@uni-bremen.de" nil "35" "starship-design: New Member :-)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1576
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA10145
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA10138
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 02:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22])
by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/ZfNServer) with SMTP id LAA115826
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:48:06 +0100
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.02A.9811061129230.171526-100000@alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann <kulmann@uni-bremen.de>
From: Christoph Kulmann <kulmann@uni-bremen.de>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: New Member :-)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:48:06 +0100 (NFT)
Hello and greetings to all,
I have just found your starship website and would like to join your
discussion group. May I introduce myself: My name is Christoph and I am a
graduate student of biology at the University of Bremen/Germany, with a
deeply rooted interest in space exploration.
I am particularly impressed by your Explorer class design concept. It
looks like a well-thought and consistent idea. I'm a bit sad not to be on
board...
For the beginning I have a simple question. In your design overview for a
fusion powered ship you give the fuel to mass ratios for different speeds
and specific impulses. Certainly the mass of the fuel and the still
relatively "low" speed imposes a heavy burden on the project.
Just for curiosity: If you suppose a speed of 0.5 c and a specific impulse
of 2,500,000 sec (25,000,000 m/s), what would be the fuel to mass ratio
required? Or from the other way, for a speed of 0.5 c, what specific
impulse would be required to keep the fuel to mass ratio below 50:1?
I don't have the formula at hand, but maybe one of you could give a quick
answer...:-)
That's all for now. I look forward to hear from you...
Christoph Kulmann
___kulmann@uni-bremen.de_______________________________
| |
| As the rooster said to the hens when he showed them |
| an ostrich egg: |
|"I am not criticising; I am not disparaging; |
| I am just pointing out what is being done elsewhere." |
|_______________________________________________________|
From VM Fri Nov 6 09:56:32 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2706" "Fri" "6" "November" "1998" "21:38:03" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "68" "Re: starship-design: Howdy Christoph :-)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2706
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA15996
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA15990
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 03:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ajcrowlx2 (slbne4p36.ozemail.com.au [203.108.251.36]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA23441 for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 22:38:33 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <003d01be0979$ed5954e0$24fb6ccb@ajcrowlx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Howdy Christoph :-)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 21:38:03 +1000
Hi Group,
Hi to you Christoph. I'm realtively new myself, though I've been designing
back of the envelope starships for years.
>I am particularly impressed by your Explorer class design concept. It
>looks like a well-thought and consistent idea. I'm a bit sad not to be on
>board...
>
You and me both.
>For the beginning I have a simple question. In your design overview for a
>fusion powered ship you give the fuel to mass ratios for different speeds
>and specific impulses. Certainly the mass of the fuel and the still
>relatively "low" speed imposes a heavy burden on the project.
Fuel mass and specific impulse. We need a power source better than fusion,
but none of us has anything that is more thought out than fusion at present.
I think we're waiting for inspiration. Tho no warp-drives please, that's
just depressing since we have no idea how that can be done yet.
>Just for curiosity: If you suppose a speed of 0.5 c and a specific impulse
>of 2,500,000 sec (25,000,000 m/s), what would be the fuel to mass ratio
>required?
Something obscene... about 500,000 to one, if you carry fuel to stop. About
700 to 1 if you stop via a magnetic-sail or some other non-fuelled braking
system.
> Or from the other way, for a speed of 0.5 c, what specific
>impulse would be required to keep the fuel to mass ratio below 50:1?
0.28 c if you carry braking fuel, or 0.14 c if you don't.
>I don't have the formula at hand, but maybe one of you could give a quick
>answer...:-)
>
The formula is easy ;-)
Mi/Mf = [ (1+ v/c)/(1-v/c)]^c/Ve, if you brake with rockets, and the
square-root if you don't.
Mi= initial mass, Mf=final mass; v, is obvious as is c; Ve is the exhaust
velocity [Isp x g, of course]
to reverse of the equation is a bit tricky...
to find Ve/c it's (log[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]) / log(Mi/Mf), and you've guessed
it's half that if you don't carry gas to stop.
to find v it gets trickier...
especially in ASCII !!!
I'm kind of hoping that we'll figure out a way of powering up to a Ve of
+0.4 c, which would make starflight that much easier. If you check out one
of my posts on the EQ Pegasi thing I discuss recent work that suggests the
GUT unification energy might be lower than the "orthodox" 10^16 GeV. Perhaps
as low as a mere 1000 GeV. With GUT unification we should be able to
"dissolve matter", perhaps converting it to energy without mucking around
with anti-matter. Or we might be able to liberate "phase-transition energy"
which according to some theorists created matter and energy in this
Universe - that'd open up the possibility of continuous acceleration flight
to anywhere in the Universe. That's about the best I can imagine until we
crack how to make wormholes.
Adam
From VM Wed Nov 11 15:05:15 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["149" "Wed" "11" "November" "1998" "22:40:01" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "6" "starship-design: Hello." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 149
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28160
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28148
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin50.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.50])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14160
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:50:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <364A1241.76D1A7E@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <199811112244.OAA23417@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Hello.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:40:01 +0000
(test message 1)
The star ship design looks good so far, but what about the comet belt
outside the solar system?
I big thunk if you hit something.
From VM Wed Nov 11 15:38:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["366" "Wed" "11" "November" "1998" "15:25:10" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "10" "starship-design: Hello." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 366
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18885
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wakko.efn.org (root@wakko.efn.org [206.163.176.6])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18865
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68])
by wakko.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA17848
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA22122;
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:25:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13898.7382.784237.347246@tzadkiel.efn.org>
In-Reply-To: <364A1241.76D1A7E@jetnet.ab.ca>
References: <199811112244.OAA23417@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
<364A1241.76D1A7E@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
From: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Hello.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Ben Franchuk writes:
> (test message 1)
> The star ship design looks good so far, but what about the comet belt
> outside the solar system?
> I big thunk if you hit something.
It's no more dense than the asteroid belt, which isn't very dense
at all. The chance of hitting one of those comets when striking
out in any particular direction is very, very small.
From VM Thu Nov 12 09:53:21 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["167" "Thu" "12" "November" "1998" "17:07:03" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "6" "starship-design: Fuel questions." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 167
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA24103
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24086
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin33.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.33])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA09926
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:17:47 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <364B15B6.8F49DAF5@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Fuel questions.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:07:03 +0000
In the 6Li + 6Li reacton using a p catalist would not the p be lost in a
direct fusion drive
and p have to supplied as well or is there a 6Li+6Li direct reaction?
From VM Thu Nov 12 12:31:04 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1657" "Thu" "12" "November" "1998" "20:05:10" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "37" "starship-design: A New starship class." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1657
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA23172
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23133
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17165
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:15:52 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <364B3F75.77CF7029@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: A New starship class.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:05:10 +0000
Here is new design on the explorer class. Delta Clipper for lack of
better name.
Only the general ideas have been kicking around. Travel speed 1/8C.
This will give a flight time Alpha-Centuri
of 4.3 ly in about 35 years and stay of 10 years. Round trip time is
about 80 years. Average crew will be
about 1500. Habiation deck will be 3x current with supples grown for
for the return trip. Equpment will be
in part form only to assemble on site. Other stuff about 2x.
Eploration Equipment: 10,000 tons
Life support: ( restore on site )? 4,850 tons
Crew: 150 tons
Food: 65 tons each. 100,000
tons
Personel: 15,000 tons
Habitat: 30,000 tons
Shelding: ? (help) 100,000 tons
Stucture: 200,000 tons
Engine and drive: 200,000 tons
-------------
total 660,000 tons
Ship masses: 6Li+6Li
External fuel: total mass
8.25+1 6,110,000 tons
Internal fuel: total mass
68.0+1 45,540,000 tons
Ship masses for 3He+3He ( my pick over 6Li )
External fuel: total mass
6.52+1 4,950,000 tons
Internal fuel: total mass
42.5+1 28,710,000 tons
From VM Thu Nov 12 14:00:37 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["906" "Fri" "13" "November" "1998" "07:50:49" "+1000" "AJ Crowl" "ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Hello." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 906
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15469
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15452
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (slbne13p24.ozemail.com.au [203.108.106.88]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01984; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:51:40 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <001101be0e86$8565cb40$586a6ccb@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
From: "AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>,
<starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: Hello.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:50:49 +1000
Hi Group,
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 1998 8:40
Subject: starship-design: Hello.
>(test message 1)
>The star ship design looks good so far, but what about the comet belt
>outside the solar system?
>A big thunk if you hit something.
>
As one other reply puts it - the comets are fairly evenly spread out there,
and there's a whole lot of space between them. Smaller bits of dust can
either be absorbed by a passive shield or destroyed with hi-power
lasers/beam weapons. Perhaps an ionising precursor beam can be fired and
powerful EM fields can deflect most junk - an EM shield is probably the best
option for cosmic-ray shielding, since carrying a shield of water five
metres thick would be wasteful.
Don't worry we're figuring these problems out...
That's what we're here for.
Adam
>
>
From VM Thu Nov 12 16:28:03 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["157" "Thu" "12" "November" "1998" "23:57:08" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "5" "starship-design: Reactor Design" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 157
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25828
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25796
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin57.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.57])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26726
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:07:48 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <364B75D4.D6A1AF88@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Reactor Design
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:57:08 +0000
What is the current status on the QED reactor?
I can't seem to find any models or design drawings on the net later than
about 1995?
Anybody have more info?
From VM Fri Nov 13 09:57:53 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["302" "Thu" "12" "November" "1998" "22:11:21" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Hello." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 302
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA03990
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA03979
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:12:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2MINa19215
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:11:21 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <85897c00.364ba359@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Hello.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 22:11:21 EST
In a message dated 11/11/98 5:55:34 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
>(test message 1)
>The star ship design looks good so far, but what about the comet belt
>outside the solar system?
>I big thunk if you hit something.
In general, look where your going or blast a path clear ahead of you.
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 13 09:57:54 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["707" "Fri" "13" "November" "1998" "16:51:32" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "20" "starship-design: Reactor output losses." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 707
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10898
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA10856
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin52.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.52])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19801
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:02:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <364C6394.9D096FE5@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Reactor output losses.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:51:32 +0000
Direct thrust reactor:
For quick calculation of thrust I have a point source of Energy hitting
a square box.
______
| | Only 1 side of the box gets hit from
the reaction thus 1/6 of the energy
| * | is converted into thrust. Because most
of the energy stikes at a angle
| ______| I guess 2/3 of the energy is turned into
thrust. That is about 11% energy
conversion.
If a 4500MW reactor is 3 meters. 1/3 of the radius is cube root of the
power?
A smaller reactor 16 MW with a radius 1 meter is my guess for a
practical reactior @ 2050.
Now to find a formula to convert 1.75 MW into thrust...
From VM Fri Nov 13 17:20:06 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1178" "Fri" "13" "November" "1998" "18:12:04" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "32" "starship-design: Re: Reaction Conversion." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1178
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16946
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA16928
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10589
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:13:58 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199811140113.SAA10589@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BE0F31.1DF719E0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: Re: Reaction Conversion.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:12:04 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE0F31.1DF719E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Revised calculations:
Doing a little more thinking here.
The reactor is inclosed in 1/2 a sphere. 50% of the energy is lost to
space.
Only 1/2 the energy is used as a thrust vector. This gives 25% of the fuel
into
thrust. Asuming 80% burn of mass this gives a 5:1 thrust ratio.
A 16Mw reactor will give 8Mw of heat and 3.2MW of thrust.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE0F31.1DF719E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">Revised calculations:<br>Doing a little =
more thinking here.<br>The reactor is inclosed in 1/2 a sphere. 50% of =
the energy is lost to space.<br>Only 1/2 the energy is used as a thrust =
vector. This gives 25% of the fuel into<br>thrust. Asuming 80% burn of =
mass this gives a 5:1 thrust ratio.<br>A 16Mw reactor will give 8Mw of =
heat and 3.2MW of thrust.<br><br><br><br><br></p>
</font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE0F31.1DF719E0--
From VM Mon Nov 16 11:32:36 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1063" "Sat" "14" "November" "1998" "19:00:17" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "25" "starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1063
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22487
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22481
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22098
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:02:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199811150202.TAA22098@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BE1001.0506DC60"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:00:17 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1001.0506DC60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Assuming a reactor has a 95% burn and 95% conversion to Electrical
power and 95% conversion back into thust that gives about a 80%
figure of mert. Something that high is needed.
A genetic increase of the human life span to 150 to 200% with several
hibernation
periods could not hurt ether.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1001.0506DC60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">Assuming a reactor has a 95% burn and =
95% conversion to Electrical<br>power and 95% conversion back into thust =
that gives about a 80%<br>figure of mert. Something that high is =
needed.<br>A genetic increase of the human life span to 150 to 200% with =
several hibernation<br>periods could not hurt ether.<br> </p>
</font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1001.0506DC60--
From VM Mon Nov 16 21:04:08 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3488" "Mon" "16" "November" "1998" "22:49:23" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "86" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 schedule slip to Dec. '99" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3488
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29060
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from stevev@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29050
for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26971
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from claymore (p237.gnt.com [204.49.89.237])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA24853
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:50:55 -0600
Message-ID: <001a01be11e5$a5c6ba40$0101a8c0@claymore>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "Starship Design" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 schedule slip to Dec. '99
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:49:23 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On
Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 9:30 PM
To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News
Subject: SSRT: X-33 schedule slip to Dec. '99
The November 2, 1998, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology included
a story entitled "X-33 Flight Slips Half-Year To December 1999" by
Michael A. Dornheim on pages 26 and 27. Major points from the article
include:
* X-33 should be 69% complete by the end of 1998.
* X-33 is now scheduled for flight in December 1999.
* Liquid hydrogen tank is 50% complete and should be ready by year's end.
* The metallic thermal protection system (TPS) was recently validated in
tests at Langley Research Center.
* Reaction control system has been tested and pronounced flightworthy.
* Edwards launch site construction will be complete this month (Nov. '98).
X-33 will be moved there (sans engine) for tests in July.
* Engine approval is expected in November 1999.
* Lockheed Martin is spending 80% of funds on X-33, 20% on VentureStar.
* Historically, on average, every three months the X-33 schedule has slipped
by one month. If this continues, first flight would actually be July 2000.
* Reasons for the recent delay include a 7 month slip in delivery of the
XRS-2200 linear aerospike engines, and the need to choose a suitable
lining material for the liquid hydrogen tanks.
* Warping forces in the aerospike exhaust nozzle ramp proved challenging.
Its temperature varies from -420F where the liquid hydrogen fuel begins
circulating through it to 5,000F where the full blast from the 10 thrust
chambers is received. Unlike the bell nozzles of conventional rocket
engines, the linear aerospike's ramp attaches directly to the vehicle
structure at multiple points. Problem was known a year ago, and caused a
delivery slip from February to May of 1999.
* Recent difficulties with engine have centered on ramp fabrication. Ramp
is composed of a copper sheet milled with internal cooling passages which
is brazed onto a steel backing. That brazing has proved difficult, but a
successful ramp was produced in September. This problem caused a slip
from May to August or September 1999.
LockMart knew of problem in February, but did not publicize it until
Oct. 27.
* Another delay was caused by the late delivery by subcontractors of the
XRS-2200 turbomachinery. Tests began October 2 at Stennis Space Center.
* "[D]imensional issues with the thrust chambers have been resolved and
about 10 chambers have been built."
* "Rocketdyne estimates the X-33 engine problems have increased its costs
by $36 million." LockMart expects Rocketdyne to cover those costs.
* First 5 flights will go to Michael AAF on the Dugway Proving Grounds.
Next 2 flights will go to Malmstrom AFB. After that a decision about
further
flights will be made.
* X-33's mass fraction will be 26.3%. VentureStar's is to be 10%, so a 62%
reduction is required.
* Venture Star's RS-2200 engine is to have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 80,
compared to a ratio of 35 for X-33's XRS-2200. In effect, a 56% weight
reduction is required.
----Chris
Chris W. Johnson | "Do we realize that industry,
| which has been our good servant,
chrisj@mail.utexas.edu | might make a poor master?"
http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/ | --Aldo Leopold, 1925
From VM Wed Nov 18 10:13:49 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["867" "Tue" "17" "November" "1998" "20:01:14" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 867
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18426
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18359
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KXOa03150
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:01:14 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <4fbeca79.36521c5a@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:01:14 EST
In a message dated 11/14/98 9:06:43 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
>Assuming a reactor has a 95% burn and 95% conversion to Electrical
>
>power and 95% conversion back into thust that gives about a 80%
>
>figure of mert. Something that high is needed.
>
>A genetic increase of the human life span to 150 to 200% with several
>
>hibernation
>
>periods could not hurt ether.
>
>
The high fuel to thrust numbers are kind of a given. However longer lifespans
wouldn't really help. If the mission was going to be so slow you needed that
many extra decades, everyone would just wait a couple decades until we could
build faster ships. Besides, how many decades could the crew stand doing
nothing in a little ship? How good would they be at their jobs after decades
without hands on practice? Who'ld volenteer for a half century of
imprisonment on route?
Kelly
From VM Wed Nov 18 10:13:49 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3722" "Tue" "17" "November" "1998" "22:21:26" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 3722
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA09404
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA09393
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA29185
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:23:55 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199811180523.WAA29185@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BE1278.9D857FE0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:21:26 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1278.9D857FE0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> The high fuel to thrust numbers are kind of a given. However longer
lifespans
> wouldn't really help. If the mission was going to be so slow you needed
that
> many extra decades, everyone would just wait a couple decades until we
could
> build faster ships. Besides, how many decades could the crew stand doing
> nothing in a little ship? How good would they be at their jobs after
decades
> without hands on practice? Who'ld volenteer for a half century of
> imprisonment on route?
>
Thats based on the assumsion that faster ships are possible.
Right now I just have the numbers given here with fusion reactors @
2050. Anybody care to build a multi stage fusion reactor like a in a
red giant star or come up with antimatter source.
Not very likely at the moment. But with out hard numbers it is hard to
design
a REAL spacecraft.
While cabin fever is a major problem
and that will be big factor on any spacecraft it is one of the hardships
of any synthetic envorment. The sole purpose in life is eat,sleep,breed
and not be lunch for somebody else, jobs are a side effect.
Now is a manned probe really needed? If the goal is simple information
then a unmanned (antimatter?) probe is the best bet The next star system
is too far as busness venture, with only a 50% chance of being a habbitable
very remote outpost... I can see it a planetary make work project (
starship
to the stars) as a matter of pride and friendship and history even if we
launch the ship unmaned to say "Look we of 'planet terra' made it here".
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1278.9D857FE0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><br> <br>> The high fuel to thrust =
numbers are kind of a given. However longer lifespans<br>> =
wouldn't really help. If the mission was going to be so slow you =
needed that<br>> many extra decades, everyone would just wait a =
couple decades until we could<br>> build faster ships. Besides, =
how many decades could the crew stand doing<br>> nothing in a little =
ship? How good would they be at their jobs after decades<br>> =
without hands on practice? Who'ld volenteer for a half century =
of<br>> imprisonment on route?<br>> <br><br>Thats based on the =
assumsion that faster ships are possible.<br>Right now I just have the =
numbers given here with fusion reactors @<br>2050. Anybody care to build =
a multi stage fusion reactor like a in a <br>red giant star or come up =
with antimatter source.<br>Not very likely at the moment. But with out =
hard numbers it is hard to design<br>a REAL spacecraft.<br><br> While =
cabin fever is a major problem<br>and that will be big factor on any =
spacecraft it is one of the hardships<br>of any synthetic envorment. =
The sole purpose in life is eat,sleep,breed<br>and not be lunch =
for somebody else, jobs are a side effect.<br><br>Now is a manned probe =
really needed? If the goal is simple information<br>then a unmanned =
(antimatter?) probe is the best bet The next star system<br>is too far =
as busness venture, with only a 50% chance of being a habbitable<br>very =
remote outpost... I can see it a planetary make work project ( =
starship<br>to the stars) as a matter of pride and friendship and =
history even if we launch the ship unmaned to say "Look we of =
'planet terra' made it here".<br><br></p>
</font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1278.9D857FE0--
From VM Fri Nov 20 10:44:37 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1605" "Thu" "19" "November" "1998" "21:42:38" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1605
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA29951
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA29938
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2NPMa26406
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:42:38 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <28651aa0.3654d71e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:42:38 EST
In a message dated 11/18/98 12:27:55 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> The high fuel to thrust numbers are kind of a given. However longer
>
>lifespans
>
>> wouldn't really help. If the mission was going to be so slow you needed
>
>that
>
>> many extra decades, everyone would just wait a couple decades until we
>
>could
>
>> build faster ships. Besides, how many decades could the crew stand doing
>
>> nothing in a little ship? How good would they be at their jobs after
>
>decades
>
>> without hands on practice? Who'ld volenteer for a half century of
>
>> imprisonment on route?
>
>>
>
>
>
>Thats based on the assumsion that faster ships are possible.
>
>Right now I just have the numbers given here with fusion reactors @
>
>2050. Anybody care to build a multi stage fusion reactor like a in a
>
>red giant star or come up with antimatter source.
>
>Not very likely at the moment. But with out hard numbers it is hard to
>
>design
>
>a REAL spacecraft.
That misses the point. Yes we now can't think past 2050 because we haven't a
clue what science and technology will be avalible then, but a real group
deciding to launch or not would know that they will develop better systems.
So they would not launch a ship that took to long to do its mission.
> While cabin fever is a major problem
>
>and that will be big factor on any spacecraft it is one of the hardships
>
>of any synthetic envorment. The sole purpose in life is eat,sleep,breed
>
>and not be lunch for somebody else, jobs are a side effect.
Sorry, a promo like that will not get volenteers for the ship.
Kelly
From VM Fri Nov 20 10:44:38 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil]
["2004" "Thu" "19" "November" "1998" "23:00:45" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" "<199811200603.XAA20798@main.jetnet.ab.ca>" "44" "starship-design: way too long." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2004
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA21633
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA21628
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA20798
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:03:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199811200603.XAA20798@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BE1410.70C762E0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: way too long.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:00:45 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1410.70C762E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think no new devopments will happen in space travel for intersteller
travel,
only refinements of current developments. FTL and warped space seem to
require black holes -- something I don't want to have around. :)
This is a little like air craft before the wright brothers perfected the
airplane,
a lot of ideas but nothing solid yet. We know that wings,engine and tail
are
needed but how to put it all together. However a interpanetary trip is done
It will mean sacrifices and risk and hardships let a lone a interstellar
trip.
Star Trek we will never have. Right now I have yet to see low cost travel
into
earths orbit. If there is a fast way to travel to the stars I am sure man
will
find it but that does not mean there is a fast way.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1410.70C762E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">I think no new devopments will happen =
in space travel for intersteller travel,<br>only refinements of current =
developments. FTL and warped space seem to<br>require black holes -- =
something I don't want to have around. :)<br>This is a little like air =
craft before the wright brothers perfected the airplane,<br>a lot of =
ideas but nothing solid yet. We know that wings,engine and tail =
are<br>needed but how to put it all together. However a interpanetary =
trip is done<br>It will mean sacrifices and risk and hardships let a =
lone a interstellar trip.<br>Star Trek we will never have. Right now I =
have yet to see low cost travel into<br>earths orbit. If there is a fast =
way to travel to the stars I am sure man will<br>find it but that does =
not mean there is a fast way.<br><br><br><br></p>
</font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE1410.70C762E0--
From VM Mon Nov 23 09:59:12 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1701" "Sun" "22" "November" "1998" "00:51:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: way too long." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1701
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA20939
for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA20933
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2KUOa28568
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 22 Nov 1998 00:51:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <13694c29.3657a66d@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: way too long.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 00:51:41 EST
In a message dated 11/20/98 1:07:04 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
>I think no new devopments will happen in space travel for intersteller
>
>travel,
>
>only refinements of current developments.
This is impossible. We've far to many gaping holes in our understanding of
physics effects related to interstellar travel to make such a claim. Thats
like a person a century ago insisting no power source will be found thats
better then chemistry. You could say that given the lack of understanding of
nuclear and mater conversion effects this was reasonable, but the sun over
head is pretty obvious,, and could not be sustained with chemical reactions.
>FTL and warped space seem to
>
>require black holes -- something I don't want to have around. :)
No way to tell. Some papers on "warp drives" suggest its impossible without
fantasic stellar or exotic mater effects. Other suggest zero-point energy or
other tricks. We just don't know enough to know.
>This is a little like air craft before the wright brothers perfected the
>
>airplane,
>
>a lot of ideas but nothing solid yet. We know that wings,engine and tail
>
>are
>
>needed but how to put it all together. However a interpanetary trip is done
>
>It will mean sacrifices and risk and hardships let a lone a interstellar
>
>trip.
>
>Star Trek we will never have.
Never is a very long time, and we not that good at predicting the future.
Learned experts gave similar absolute statements about airtravel, much less
commerce.
>Right now I have yet to see low cost travel
>
>into
>
>earths orbit. If there is a fast way to travel to the stars I am sure man
>
>will
>
>find it but that does not mean there is a fast way.
>
Kelly
From VM Mon Nov 23 15:24:56 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["1724" "Mon" "23" "November" "1998" "18:15:44" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 1724
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18081
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18044
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2HCPa19644
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:15:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <c6573228.3659eca0@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_911862943_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:15:44 EST
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_911862943_boundary
Content-ID: <0_911862943@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
In a message dated 11/23/98 5:04:52 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com writes:
>Help. Please translate!
>
>Kelly
>
>
>
>http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/seward.html
--part0_911862943_boundary
Content-ID: <0_911862943@inet_out.mail.udlp.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com>
Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by
air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v51.29) with SMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:04:52
-0500
Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80])
by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id RAA15526 for <kellyst@aol.com>;
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:04:51 -0500 (EST)
From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost)
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id QAA08610
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:04:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12])
by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id QAA08585
for <kellyst@aol.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:04:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com
(IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 00185BE8; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:06:03 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:05:23 -0600
Message-ID: <00185BE8.C21254@udlp.com>
Subject: Help, need translation
To: kellyst@aol.com
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Help. Please translate!
Kelly
http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/seward.html
--part0_911862943_boundary--
From VM Tue Nov 24 08:20:30 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["580" "Mon" "23" "November" "1998" "19:36:38" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 580
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18458
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA18444
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CLAYMORE (p196.gnt.com [204.49.89.196])
by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA03236
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:34:02 -0600
Received: by CLAYMORE with Microsoft Mail
id <01BE1739.7DC611E0@CLAYMORE>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:32:10 -0600
Message-ID: <01BE1739.7DC611E0@CLAYMORE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id VAA18448
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
From: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" <KellySt@aol.com>,
"starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:36:38 -0600
Beats me, sounds like another ion engine. High ISP doesn't necessarily mean high thrust, just efficiency. I wouldn't be claiming it was the equivalent of a Titan....
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 5:16 PM
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation
In a message dated 11/23/98 5:04:52 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com writes:
>Help. Please translate!
>
>Kelly
>
>
>
>http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/seward.html
<< Message: Help, need translation >>
From VM Tue Nov 24 08:20:30 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["197" "Mon" "23" "November" "1998" "23:03:58" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "4" "starship-design: re: translate." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 197
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA26884
for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26829
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 22:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin59.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.59])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA25665
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:07:20 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199811240607.XAA25665@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: re: translate.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:03:58 -0800
While it a ion engine, it sounds like it can store a huge amount of energy
in a modest electron cloud. 4 x 10**9 joules / kg.
1/1000 of a fusion reaction in simple vacum bottle.
Fill it up and go.
From VM Wed Nov 25 10:03:57 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["807" "Tue" "24" "November" "1998" "23:03:42" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 807
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA10527
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:04:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA10498
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2VSMa13470;
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:03:42 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <e95ace88.365b819e@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net
Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:03:42 EST
No, it sounds like this think stores power in its magnetic fields. Sort of a
like a nonphysical capacitor or something?
Kelly
In a message dated 11/24/98 12:37:58 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:
>Beats me, sounds like another ion engine. High ISP doesn't necessarily
>mean high thrust, just efficiency. I wouldn't be claiming it was the
equivalent
>of a Titan....
>
>Lee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 5:16 PM
>To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
>Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Help, need translation
>
>
>In a message dated 11/23/98 5:04:52 PM, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com writes:
>
>>Help. Please translate!
>>
>>Kelly
>>
>>
>>
>>http://peaches.niac.usra.edu/studies/seward.html
> << Message: Help, need translation >>
From VM Wed Nov 25 10:03:57 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2179" "Tue" "24" "November" "1998" "23:03:52" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "starship-design: Re: StarShip Design...." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2179
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16333
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA16327
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:26:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id THEMa01253;
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:03:52 +1900 (EST)
Message-ID: <ddae4b87.365b81a8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: clickithard@Worldnet.ATT.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design....
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:03:52 EST
In a message dated 11/23/98 3:12:51 AM, clickithard@worldnet.att.net writes:
>Dear Intriguing Persons,
>
>
>
> My name is Stewart Calhoun, CEO of PROLITECH Innovations UnLtd.
("Bringing
>a Convenient Future to the Masses Through Science and Technology.") I am,
>and have always been an avid supporter of the peaceful, scientific
exploration
>(and mild exploitation) of space, and as such I am amazingly keen to be
>a part of the ambitious design and production of the StarShip agenda.
>
> I will admit that at present I am only attending university, majoring
>in Astronomy with a second sub-major, as it were, in theoretical physics
>(what can I say, I am a fan of Michio Kaku, and the late Carl Sagan), but
>I am ever eager to be a part of some bigger project along the very lines
>the S.D. is striving for.
>
> PROLITECH is, at present best, a very (VERY) small and highly underfunded
>business/organization devoted to bringing futuristic conveniences to the
>common persons of the world -- hence the name, meaning "Prolitariet
Technologies".
>We are devoted to bringing tomorrow to everyone. We are busy designing
>simple, reliable transport aerocraft, emission free land and air vehicles,
>super convenient subterranian 'automated' home concepts, and, as silly
>as it may seem to just about every outsider we speak to, we are diligently,
>and seriously, delving into spacecraft mechanics and engineering concepts
>to simplify the vehicle into a lovingly titled build-it-yourself manual
>"The Backyard Astronaut."
>
> I realize you may be saying to yourself, "This fellow reads far to
>much Douglas Adams", but I am truely sane and would love any information
>that may be sent regarding how to become a part of the S.D. project.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> S.G.Calhoun
>
> clickithard@worldnet.att.net
>
> 1916 Portland Ave., TL., FL. 32303
>
> 850 385 3795
Welcome to the group. I'm assuming you found the function to join the group
list?
Oh, ah-- ""Prolitariet Technologies". We are devoted to bringing tomorrow to
everyone." - I hope thats a joke? A student CEO of a - sort of R&D
organization?
Anyway welcome to the group.
Kelly
From VM Wed Nov 25 12:58:11 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["412" "Wed" "25" "November" "1998" "14:24:31" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design...." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 412
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21995
for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21979
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunherald.infi.net (pm5-40.gpt.infi.net [207.0.195.40])
by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21881
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:28:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <365C839F.B4CEBC8E@sunherald.infi.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ddae4b87.365b81a8@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design....
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:24:31 -0800
KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> Oh, ah-- ""Prolitariet Technologies". We are devoted to bringing tomorrow to
> everyone." - I hope thats a joke? A student CEO of a - sort of R&D
> organization?
What's wrong with that (being a student and running a research
organization)? Keep this in mind: the beloved Albert Einstein started
out when he was ~14. Age means nothing. Maybe the guy has vision.
Kyle R. Mcallister
From VM Sat Nov 28 17:06:15 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["5063" "Thu" "26" "November" "1998" "11:58:36" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "128" "starship-design: Fwd: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 5063
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10039
for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA10032
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2SMPa02196;
Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:58:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <bb171753.365d88bc@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="part0_912099518_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com,
MARK.A.JENSEN@cpmx.mail.saic.com, moschleg@erols.com,
schlegel@rmc1.crocker.com, Sdudley6@aol.com, alford@netcom.com,
WILLIAM_BIGLEY@fmc.com, HEDMARC@cellpro.cellpro.com,
James1H104@aol.com, HJohn16239@aol.com, maryj@btio.com, rickj@btio.com,
leneski@chrome.gc.peachnet.edu, ParkerDoc@aol.com, edrataj@ibm.net,
ARobnett@aol.com, Msruff@aol.com, john.sulva@internetMCI.com,
zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com
Subject: starship-design: Fwd: No Subject
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:58:36 EST
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_912099518_boundary
Content-ID: <0_912099518@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Never ignore the messy folks.
Kelly
--part0_912099518_boundary
Content-ID: <0_912099518@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
From: Kryswalker@aol.com
Return-path: <Kryswalker@aol.com>
To: KellySt@aol.com
Cc: ecorvidae@mailexcite.com, Lace168@aol.com, DSBooks@visi.com
Subject: No Subject
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:05:35 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Some things to contemplate, forwarded to me by George Wells from his Aussie
colleague...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:15:05 +1000
From: Schouten Janeen <Janeen.Schouten@dnr.qld.gov.au>
> JUDGEMENT - TRUE STORY
>
> A lady in a faded gingham dress and her husband, dressed in a homespun
> threadbare suit, stepped off the train in Boston, and walked timidly
> without an appointment into the Harvard president's outer office.
> The secretary could tell in a moment that such backwoods, country hicks
> had no business at Harvard and probably didn't even deserve to be in
> Cambridge.She frowned.
>
> "We want to see the president," the man said softly.
> "He'll be busy all day," the secretary snapped.
>
> "We'll wait," the lady replied. For hours, the secretary ignored
> them, hoping that the couple would finally become discouraged and go
> away.
>
> They didn't. And the secretary grew frustrated and finally decided
> to disturb the president, even though it was a chore she always
> regretted doing. "Maybe if they just see you for a few minutes, they'll
> leave," she told him.
>
> And he sighed in exasperation and nodded. Someone of his
> importance obviously didn't have the time to spend with them, but he
> detested gingham dresses and homespun suits cluttering up his outer
> office.
>
> The president, stern-faced with dignity, strutted toward the couple.
>
> The lady told him, "We had a son that attended Harvard for one year. He
> loved Harvard. He was happy here. But about a year ago, he was
> accidentally killed. And my husband and I would like to erect a memorial
> to him, somewhere on campus."
>
> The president wasn't touched, he was shocked. "Madam," he said
> gruffly. "We can't put up a statue for every person who attended Harvard
> and died. If we did, this place would look like a cemetery."
>
> "Oh, no," the lady explained quickly. "We don't want to erect a
> statue. We thought we would like to give a building to Harvard."
>
> The president rolled his eyes. He glanced at the gingham dress and
> homespun suit, then exclaimed, "A building! Do you have any
> earthly idea how much a building costs? We have over seven and a half
> million dollars in the physical plant at Harvard."
>
> For a moment the lady was silent. The president was pleased. He
> could get rid of them now.
>
> And the lady turned to her husband and said quietly, "Is that all
> it costs to start a University? Why don't we just start our own?"
> Her husband nodded. The president's face wilted in confusion and
> bewilderment.
>
> And Mr. and Mrs. Leland Stanford walked away, traveling to Palo Alto,
> California where they established the University that bears their name, a
> memorial to a son that Harvard no longer cared about.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> THE GOOSE STORY
>
> This Fall, when you see the geese heading south for the winter flying
> along in a "V" formation, you might be interested in knowing what
> science has discovered about why they fly that way.
>
> It has been learned that as each bird flaps its wings, it creates an
> uplift for the bird immediately following. Thus, by flying in a "V"
> formation, the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range
> than if each bird flew on its own.
> Whenever a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag
> and resistance of trying to go it alone, and quickly gets back into
> formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird
> immediately in front.
>
> When the lead goose gets tired, he rotates back in the wing and
> another goose flies point.
> The geese at the back of the formation constantly honk to encourage
> those up front to maintain their speed.
>
> Finally, when a goose gets sick, or is wounded by gunshots and drops
from the
> sky, two other geese immediately fall out of formation and follow him
down to > fly to help or protect him. Moreover, they stay with him until
he is either able
> to fly again or until he is dead, and then they launch out on their
> own again or with another formation to catch up with their group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
--part0_912099518_boundary--
From VM Sat Nov 28 17:06:15 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["726" "Fri" "27" "November" "1998" "15:28:43" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design...." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 726
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17259
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17248
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2INKa16323
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:28:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <a0446fd3.365f0b7b@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design....
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:28:43 EST
In a message dated 11/25/98 3:33:14 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net writes:
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Oh, ah-- ""Prolitariet Technologies". We are devoted to bringing tomorrow
>to
>> everyone." - I hope thats a joke? A student CEO of a - sort of R&D
>> organization?
>
>What's wrong with that (being a student and running a research
>organization)? Keep this in mind: the beloved Albert Einstein started
>out when he was ~14. Age means nothing. Maybe the guy has vision.
>
>Kyle R. Mcallister
No one gets to run a major corp or research center at 14. Einstine never ran
any organization as far as I know.
As for Prolitariet etc. Definatly not a name to get serious support from
investors or grant organizations.
Kelly
From VM Sat Nov 28 17:06:15 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2080" "Fri" "27" "November" "1998" "15:28:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "starship-design: Re: Great Page!" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2080
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17370
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17363
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from KellySt@aol.com
by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id PCBJa27479;
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:28:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <b7358966.365f0b6d@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com
From: KellySt@aol.com
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: zodiac1@bellsouth.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: Re: Great Page!
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:28:29 EST
Glad you liked the site. We aim to interest and inspire.
Can't say I've thought of geting a T-shirt of something from the site. Thou a
Lunar Institute of technology alumni shirt might be interesting? If we decide
to do a alumni shirt or something I'll keep you in mind, and I'll CC the group
about your offer.
Hope you like the rest of the site, foward to any you might think will be
interested.
Kelly
In a message dated 11/25/98 2:02:18 AM, zodiac1@bellsouth.net writes:
>Damn.... incredible page, guess i'm gonna have to camp out here for a
>week to check it all out! I have sent your URL to other researchers
>including www.members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/orbit.html
>and www.caus.org. Thanks for all the effort you obviously put into this
>masterpiece. Your bookmarked fer sure.. I hope you dont think of this as
>a spam , I have a T-shirt biz in
>Micanopy FL a nice small town of around 800 people, and have been doing
>t-shirts etc for over 20 years. In the past few months Ive been doing
>shirts for Websites and the success on this is very good. The way I do
>it is easy for all concerned. We can do either silk screened prints or
>32 bit color wax thermal prints using Top of the line Seiko printers. On
>
>a 100 % Hanes Beefy T or 100% fruit of the loom premium weight shirt.
>Shirts selling for $15.00 + $3.00 ship handling will make $5.00 per
>shirt for you. All you have to do is forward the orders to me with CC
>#'s or have them send checks to you and we send you a check. No
>inventory to purchase no cash outlay, just profit for you. I know what
>it costs in time and money to keep a website running I'm sure it would
>help. Another nice thing is with the 32 bit prints the design can be
>changed or designs added at no cost or hassle. Very kewl indeed. Well
>Thanks for the page, and I would be happy to send you a free sample
>shirt or mousepad or coffee mug whatever you like just e-mail me
>whatever art work you would like and an address ad Ill send you one
>pronto. Joe DIVito Zodiac Printing rt 2 box 601 Micanopy, FL. 32667
>(352) 466-3333
From VM Tue Dec 8 14:36:31 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2367" "Tue" "8" "December" "1998" "17:40:58" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "53" "starship-design: URANOS Club Newsletter No. 1." nil nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 2367
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23087
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23028
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:45:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA02249; Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:40:58 +0100 (MET)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:40:58 +0100 (MET)
From: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
Message-Id: <199812081640.RAA02249@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: starship-design: URANOS Club Newsletter No. 1.
Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
---------------------------------------------------------------
--> http://www.uranos.eu.org/uranose.html <--
* * **** *** * * *** ****
* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *
* * * * * **** ***** * * * * * *** * * *
* * * * * * * * * ** * * * * *
*** * * * * * * *** ****
CLUB * for * EXPANSION * of * CIVILIZATION * into * SPACE
---------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 URANOS CLUB NEWSLETTER 4.XII.1998
This is the first issue of our irregularly published
electronic newsletter.
To receive further issues of this newsletter, please send
a letter expressing such a wish to the address:
<uranos@uranos.eu.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in the URANOS site:
- "Books worth reading": a new page (as yet only in Polish,
sorry), containing a list of Polish-language books
recommended by us for the Club supporters, with short
descriptions.
- Updated list of links to Polish WWW sites related to space
exploration, including new links to Polish institutions and
organizations that have pages written only in English, and
to personal pages of people active in amateur or professional
space research and exploration.
- Reworked and updated page about Club activities, with
information on new forms of our activities (see also below).
- Updated and extended list of links to WWW sites on the main
links page (we especially recommend the "astrobiology" and
"Space Jobs" pages, just added to the list).
- Various small improvements of graphics, contents and layout
of most pages.
New Club Activities:
- We started issuing this Newsletter.
- We launched a new, bilingual, open e-mail discussion list
<klub@uranos.eu.org>, aimed to be:
* A contact point for people interested in the Club goals;
* A means for coordination of possible activities for
realization of these goals;
* A discussion forum about aims, methods, perspectives
and consequences of space exploration by humans.
For more details see the Club pages at:
http://www.uranos.eu.org/active.html#klub.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please forward!
From VM Tue Dec 15 13:13:50 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["153" "Tuesday" "15" "December" "1998" "13:42:41" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "5" "starship-design: A new fiber." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 153
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05532
for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05499
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (woodelf@dialin33.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.33])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA19420;
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:42:36 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <3676C9C1.23FAABFE@jetnet.ab.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: erps <erps-list@Plato.LunaCity.com>,
"starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: starship-design: A new fiber.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:42:41 -0700
Here is a new light weight high strength plastic fiber just coming on
the
market.I hope you find it useful.
http://www.toyobo.co.jp/e/seihin/index.htm
From VM Sat Dec 26 13:19:24 1998
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["107" "Friday" "25" "December" "1998" "13:01:10" "-0800" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "3" "starship-design: off topic but interesting." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil]
nil)
Content-Length: 107
Return-Path: <owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17535
for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66])
by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17529
for <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 12:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62])
by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11121;
Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:09:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199812252009.NAA11121@main.jetnet.ab.ca>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
From: "ben franchuk" <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>
Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
To: "star" <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>, <erps-list@Plato.LunaCity.com>
Subject: starship-design: off topic but interesting.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:01:10 -0800
Here is a new kind of concreate ( to me ) that could be adaped for use in
space.
http://www.herculete.com/