A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Other Travel Groups » Travel - anything else not covered
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 6th, 2009, 01:26 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.

Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!

Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.
  #12  
Old August 6th, 2009, 02:54 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 3, 9:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.
Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)
Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."
That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.

Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.

Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.

Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!

Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


Even modest accelerations get you places fast if you can maintain them.

Your trip to Sedna, at 0.1g. 12.8 billion km. But you need to turnover
half way, which is 6.8 billion km, or 6.8 * 10^12 metres. At 0.1 g, that
gives 1034 hours, or about 43 days. Double it for the deceleration time
and you've done the trip in about 3 months.

Mind you, the power requirements are horrible.

Sylvia.






  #13  
Old August 6th, 2009, 02:33 PM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:



giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.

Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!

Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. *Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. Of course he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #14  
Old August 7th, 2009, 12:37 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:





On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system..
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.


Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!


Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. *Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.

*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Sylvia wrote:

Even modest accelerations get you places fast if you can maintain
them.

Your trip to Sedna, at 0.1g. 12.8 billion km. But you need to
turnover
half way, which is 6.8 billion km, or 6.8 * 10^12 metres. At 0.1 g,
that
gives 1034 hours, or about 43 days. Double it for the deceleration
time
and you've done the trip in about 3 months.


Mind you, the power requirements are horrible.


Sylvia.

Brad wrote:


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. Of course
he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.


Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

*****:

If a gradual acceleration gets one there at least as quick as a quick
one, I'm all for it. I would think that to have an average speed of
one million mph, but to accelerate as slow as possible such as to keep
accelerating to midpoint and then immediately turnover and begin
decelerating, the top speed would have to be TWO million mph. Zero
(starting speed, of sorts) + 2 million mph (top speed), divided by
two, gives average speed of ONE million mph. If this is about right,
then if gradually accelerating to TWO million mph is cheaper than
quickly accelerating to ONE MMPH, then I'm all for the gradual
acceleration.

The idea, to me, is to have one million mph be the standard: how long
does it take to get somewhere at an average speed of one million mph?
That is how long the trip should take. Any propulsion system and
acceleration/speed curve that meets that bottom line criteria would be
accepted.

Speaking of Mook, Sylvia, Brad and everybody: pretend I am Congress
and you are NASA. I say: "The craft has to perform according to the 1
million mph average speed criteria, be able to go at least to the
traditional nine planets with an eye on being able to visit the Kuiper
Belt ASAP after that, and return safely, just as fast. I [Congress]
will provide funding in the hundreds of billions to maybe even the
trillion-dollar range (over, say two decades or whatever). 'Can't' is
NOT an acceptable answer. Anyone at NASA who says "Can't" will be
FIRED!"

Now, dudes and dudesses, based on those conditions, build me a system!

So, Mook has a job! And Sylvia, Brad and others who are willing, do
too!

  #15  
Old August 7th, 2009, 12:58 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 6, 7:37*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:





On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g..
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.


Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!


Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. *Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.


*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -

Sylvia wrote:

Even modest accelerations get you places fast if you can maintain
them.

Your trip to Sedna, at 0.1g. 12.8 billion km. But you need to
turnover
half way, which is 6.8 billion km, or 6.8 * 10^12 metres. At 0.1 g,
that
gives 1034 hours, or about 43 days. Double it for the deceleration
time
and you've done the trip in about 3 months.

Mind you, the power requirements are horrible.

Sylvia.

Brad wrote:

You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course
he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.

*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

*****:

If a gradual acceleration gets one there at least as quick as a quick
one, I'm all for it. I would think that to have an average speed of
one million mph, but to accelerate as slow as possible such as to keep
accelerating to midpoint and then immediately turnover and begin
decelerating, the top speed would have to be TWO million mph. Zero
(starting speed, of sorts) + 2 million mph (top speed), divided by
two, gives average speed of ONE million mph. If this is about right,
then if gradually accelerating to TWO million mph is cheaper than
quickly accelerating to ONE MMPH, then I'm all for the gradual
acceleration.

The idea, to me, is to have one million mph be the standard: how long
does it take to get somewhere at an average speed of one million mph?
That is how long the trip should take. Any propulsion system and
acceleration/speed curve that meets that bottom line criteria would be
accepted.

Speaking of Mook, Sylvia, Brad and everybody: pretend I am Congress
and you are NASA. I say: "The craft has to perform according to the 1
million mph average speed criteria, be able to go at least to the
traditional nine planets with an eye on being able to visit the Kuiper
Belt ASAP after that, and return safely, just as fast. I [Congress]
will provide funding in the hundreds of billions to maybe even the
trillion-dollar range (over, say two decades or whatever). 'Can't' is
NOT an acceptable answer. Anyone at NASA who says "Can't" will be
FIRED!"

Now, dudes and dudesses, based on those conditions, build me a system!

So, Mook has a job! And Sylvia, Brad and others who are willing, do
too!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html

THAT is the link to the image of the centrifugal habitat on Discovery
in "Space Odyssey" that I was trying to link to. (Keep forgetting the
way google images and maps operate. So I went directly to the website
itself that I found thru Images.) Also, it's an interesting site for
sci-fi writers and directors and gamers to access to figure out ship
designs, etc.!
  #16  
Old August 7th, 2009, 01:16 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 6, 7:58*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:37*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:





On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:


On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.

  #17  
Old August 7th, 2009, 01:23 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 6, 8:16*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:58*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:





On Aug 6, 7:37*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:


On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.


Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!


Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. *Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.


*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -
Sylvia wrote:


Even modest accelerations get you places fast if you can maintain
them.


Your trip to Sedna, at 0.1g. 12.8 billion km. But you need to
turnover
half way, which is 6.8 billion km, or 6.8 * 10^12 metres. At 0.1 g,
that
gives 1034 hours, or about 43 days. Double it for the deceleration
time
and you've done the trip in about 3 months.


Mind you, the power requirements are horrible.


Sylvia.


Brad wrote:


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course
he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.


*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


*****:


If a gradual acceleration gets one there at least as quick as a quick
one, I'm all for it. I would think that to have an average speed of
one million mph, but to accelerate as slow as possible such as to keep
accelerating to midpoint and then immediately turnover and begin
decelerating, the top speed would have to be TWO million mph. Zero
(starting speed, of sorts) + 2 million mph (top speed), divided by
two, gives average speed of ONE million mph. If this is about right,
then if gradually accelerating to TWO million mph is cheaper than
quickly accelerating to ONE MMPH, then I'm all for the gradual
acceleration.


The idea, to me, is to have one million mph be the standard: how long
does it take to get somewhere at an average speed of one million mph?
That is how long the trip should take. Any propulsion system and
acceleration/speed curve that meets that bottom line criteria would be
accepted.


Speaking of Mook, Sylvia, Brad and everybody: pretend I am Congress
and you are NASA. I say: "The craft has to perform according to the 1
million mph average speed criteria, be able to go at least to the
traditional nine planets with an eye on being able to visit the Kuiper
Belt ASAP after that, and return safely, just as fast. I [Congress]
will provide funding in the hundreds of billions to maybe even the
trillion-dollar range (over, say two decades or whatever). 'Can't' is
NOT an acceptable answer. Anyone at NASA who says "Can't" will be
FIRED!"


Now, dudes and dudesses, based on those conditions, build me a system!


So, Mook has a job! And Sylvia, Brad and others who are willing, do
too!- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html


THAT is the link to the image of the centrifugal habitat on Discovery
in "Space Odyssey" that I was trying to link to. (Keep forgetting the
way google images and maps operate. So I went directly to the website
itself that I found thru Images.) Also, it's an interesting site for
sci-fi writers and directors and gamers to access to figure out ship
designs, etc.!- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


New addendums to idea:

- Smaller, unmanned versions built and flown first, sending robotic
rovers to some of these same places.

- For those flying as Free Lottery Winners, and possibly as Pay
Lottery Winners (bought one or more $100 tickets and won a Lottery or
Lotto which accumulated, say, $1 billion), to be covered by "The Space
Tourist Law." As with veterans, their employer MUST rehire them when
they return, even after months or a year or more! The Lot Winners are
considered "national symbols" and represent the Regular Guys and Gals
who are paying for this. PAYING TOURISTS, that is, the billionaires
who BUY SEATS OUTRIGHT, for say, $1 billion, for, say, trips to
Saturn, Neptune, etc.,: are not covered by the "Space Tourist Law," as
to rehiring. Billionaires hire themselves!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...sey+dis&aqi=g1

I THINK the above will work; general collection of Google images of
Discover spacecraft.
  #18  
Old August 9th, 2009, 05:34 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 6, 4:37*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g..
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.
The reason I use 1 G and 1 MMPH is that the craft is intended for use
to go to at least the entire TRADITIONAL solar system, including
Neptune and Pluto. But it would also be nice to be able to go to
Sedna, etc. By having a craft that alway performs (speed and time of
travel - wise) at least as well as one having a typical or cruising
speed of 1 million mph, the whole traditional solar system, at least,
is within reasonable reach.


Sylvia, looking at your profile, I see I don't need to explain basic
physics to you, afer all! :-) Sorry, I should have looked first before
that last post. I also checked and see the Jupiter can be up to 600+
million miles from earth, whereas I said half a billion miles , but
that's close enough for government work. Ha! Ha!


Earth -- Neptune is in the area of 2 - 3 billion miles (of course,
these distances vary as the planets orbit the sun). That's 18 weeks
one way. *Sedna is about 8 billion miles away: 48 weeks! See why I
want a craft that waste's no time getting to 1 MMPH? But any
acceleration that keeps the SAME time frames, should be acceptable.
The whole point is keeping trip times down to these that I'm talking
about.


You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.


*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -

Sylvia wrote:

Even modest accelerations get you places fast if you can maintain
them.

Your trip to Sedna, at 0.1g. 12.8 billion km. But you need to
turnover
half way, which is 6.8 billion km, or 6.8 * 10^12 metres. At 0.1 g,
that
gives 1034 hours, or about 43 days. Double it for the deceleration
time
and you've done the trip in about 3 months.

Mind you, the power requirements are horrible.

Sylvia.

Brad wrote:

You should have our bipolar William Mook on your team. *Of course
he'd
have to be 100% in charge of everything, but at least that way Mook
would get you safely there and back with nuclear fuel to burn.

*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

*****:

If a gradual acceleration gets one there at least as quick as a quick
one, I'm all for it. I would think that to have an average speed of
one million mph, but to accelerate as slow as possible such as to keep
accelerating to midpoint and then immediately turnover and begin
decelerating, the top speed would have to be TWO million mph. Zero
(starting speed, of sorts) + 2 million mph (top speed), divided by
two, gives average speed of ONE million mph. If this is about right,
then if gradually accelerating to TWO million mph is cheaper than
quickly accelerating to ONE MMPH, then I'm all for the gradual
acceleration.

The idea, to me, is to have one million mph be the standard: how long
does it take to get somewhere at an average speed of one million mph?
That is how long the trip should take. Any propulsion system and
acceleration/speed curve that meets that bottom line criteria would be
accepted.

Speaking of Mook, Sylvia, Brad and everybody: pretend I am Congress
and you are NASA. I say: "The craft has to perform according to the 1
million mph average speed criteria, be able to go at least to the
traditional nine planets with an eye on being able to visit the Kuiper
Belt ASAP after that, and return safely, just as fast. I [Congress]
will provide funding in the hundreds of billions to maybe even the
trillion-dollar range (over, say two decades or whatever). 'Can't' is
NOT an acceptable answer. Anyone at NASA who says "Can't" will be
FIRED!"

Now, dudes and dudesses, based on those conditions, build me a system!

So, Mook has a job! And Sylvia, Brad and others who are willing, do
too!


Noticed you and I are about it, as the only two willing and/or crazy
enough to go the distance (so to speak).

Oddly our all-knowing William Mook is also nowhere in sight, even
though he knows more than most anyone alive.

Actually, William Mook has already posted 99% of what you're looking
for.

Search for U235 U238 and Mook or nuclear rocket and Mook, or under any
number of his other Usenet account names, and it'll turn up.

~ BG
  #19  
Old August 11th, 2009, 07:10 PM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

On Aug 9, 12:34*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 6, 4:37*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:





On Aug 6, 9:33*am, BradGuth wrote:


On Aug 5, 5:26*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:


On Aug 3, 9:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:


giveitawhirl2008 wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:08 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been developed.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


(Also responding to BradGuth, on swinging cats, etc. - Schrodinger
didn't like cats, either, did he?) :-)


Sylvia Else wrote: " I think I'll wait until fusion rockets have been
developed."


That's one my most key points; the idea is to develop a FAST system.
It might be fission, fusion, antimatter, or whatever. The idea to me
is to have CONGRESS MANDATE acceleration of 1G and cruising speed of 1
million mph.


Once you've reached the point where propellant mass is not significant
compared with payload, you might as well run a constant acceleration all
the way (including during turnover), even if that's only, say, 0.1g.
This also reduces the power requirements, resulting in a lighter power
generator.


Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


A gradual acceleration that gets us there and back in a time frame
similar to what I'm talking would be fine for any particular mission.

  #20  
Old August 12th, 2009, 01:10 AM posted to rec.travel.misc,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
giveitawhirl2008
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default How to get yourself a vacation on another WORLD !!!

SHIELDING PROBLEM FOR HIGH SPEED SPACECRAFT

(Posting a second time; first one did not appear)

You don't even want to run into a micrometeorite at one million mph.
With net resources also available, I'm refering to "The Starflight
Handbook: A Pioneer's Guide to Interstellar Travel," by Eugene Mallowe
and Gregory Matloff (1989)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The.../9780471619123
, at the moment.

In the chapter "The Interstellar Medium," pp. 161-171, hardcover
edition, the authors discuss the problem of "starship erosion." Some
of this is relevant to high speed, solar system travel. Without
refering to anyone else, I can think of avoiding damage by contacting
things in space as being divided into three parts: 1 - fine grains
that can be redirected 2- larger objects that must be pulverized 3-
even larger objects that must be detected well enough in advance and
navigated around.

1 - redirecting fine grains: if you could magnetize or charge them and
redirect them with a magnetic field or have them scattered away
harmlessly by some other type of shied - that would be good. (The
authors also mention "screens" of different materials.)

2 - maybe some kind of particle beam to zap larger objects (say
visible to the naked eye but still low enough in mass to be
neutralized this way). Maybe even the propulsion technology for the
engine could be used on a small scale with a beam in front; on
deceleration. Engine exhaust itself might useful, but these objects
may have to be specifically detected and have part of the exhaust
partticle stream (or whatever) directed at them.

3 - For large/massive enough objects, including undetected planetoids,
etc!: must detect them far enough in advance to temporarily alter
course.

"Handbook:" Another interstellar navigational hazard was postulated by
radio astronomer john Wolfe of the NASA Ames Research Center. As well
as the more common 0.1 micron and lesser dust grains, it is possible
that rare hailstone-size particles (about 100 gram) exist in regions
of interstellar space. Because the collision of such objects and a
speeding starship would be catastrophic, and because PASSIVE
protection via as massive forward shield would be prohibitive, ACTIVE
measures might have to be provided. Perhaps a forward-pointing
millimeter-wave radar coudl be used to watch for these interstellar
'golfballs.' If one was found to be approaching, a high-power beamed
energy device - a light or X-ray laser or a neutral particle beeam -
coould be used to disintegrate or deflect the potential interstellar
mine." (p. 170)

Again, the authors are talking about INTERSTELLAR whereas I'm talking
about PLANETARY. But the problem is somewhat shared between a one
million mph planetary ship and a relativistic interstellar ship. Note,
again, also, that radar and beam also have to point REARWARD during
decelaration.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Disney World Vacation Planning Site Dann Hazel Travel Marketplace 0 February 14th, 2004 05:33 PM
Orlando vacation packages to Disney World jim Travel Marketplace 0 December 4th, 2003 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.