On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:27:46 -0700, you wrote: > >Doug was first with the correct answer: 1/sqrt(2) * speed of light >or a little more than 70% of the speed of light. I figured it >might come down to a race between Doug and Sterling. ;-)
Not to be petty, but I beat Doug by at least half an hour. :-) The time stamp on my e-mail is screw up is all (because of my time zone settings in XP. Unless you concider using a web calculator to be cheating... But the numbers given by Doug's math, your math, and my cheating are only one possible answer out of many. All assume a steady constant accelleration to the midpoint, followed by a steady constant decelleration (which is really just an accelleration pointed in the opposite direction) to the destination. But since we are describing impossible fictional devices, there is no need to be constrained to those parameters. Along with the fictional steady-accelleration engine, you could toss in inertial dampera and allow for a much heavier accelleration at the start and end points, with a engines-off crusing period in between, which may burn much less unobtanium than steady accelleration. Say you have an Orion style spacecraft and a sufficient supply of antimatter bombs, and the human crew can survive, within their inertial dampening cocoons, maybe 1,000g of accelleration (or make up your own figure.) There would be any number of accelleration rates and times, plus mid-flight cruises, that could give you the number you want. Play with those numbers. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
