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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Disney World Vacation Planning Site | Dann Hazel | Travel Marketplace | 0 | February 14th, 2004 04:33 PM |
Orlando vacation packages to Disney World | jim | Travel Marketplace | 0 | December 4th, 2003 06:58 PM |